catia_gsd_close_surface

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this is not read-only and not destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the solid is created in the active body and that the surface must be closed, but it does not state what happens if the surface is open or whether the source surface is consumed.

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?

Two short sentences are front-loaded with the core operation and include only necessary context: the watertight prerequisite and the active-body result location. No filler or repetition.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential input condition, the operation, and where the result is created. It omits failure behavior and return information, but the annotations and full schema coverage make the definition largely complete for 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds the watertight constraint for the surface parameter but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema supplies. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: turning a closed watertight surface into a solid via Part Design CloseSurface. It clearly distinguishes this from general solid creation siblings like pad or thick_surface, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

The prerequisite that the input surface must be closed/watertight implies when this tool is appropriate, but the description offers no explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives such as thick_surface. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.