Create a Blend surface connecting two curves in CATIA V5. Input curve1 and curve2 to bridge them into a continuous surface.
Create a Blend surface connecting two curves.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Optional name for the surface | |
| curve1 | Yes | First curve element name | |
| curve2 | Yes | Second curve element name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive write operation, but the description adds nothing about what gets created/destroyed, whether it needs an active geoset, or persistence behavior. For a surface-creation tool with no output schema, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a GSD surface-creation tool with no output schema and no annotations covering side effects, the description omits prerequisites, active-geoset context, and behavioral implications. It is too thin to fully guide correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description repeats 'two curves' but adds no format or naming details beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Create) and resource (Blend surface) with the connecting inputs (two curves). It is clearly distinct from siblings like gsd_fill or gsd_sweep, though it doesn't explicitly contrast against them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., curves must exist, active geoset requirement), and no mention of alternatives like multi_section_surface or fill. The agent must infer context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.