Create a new geometrical set in the active CATIA V5 part and set it as the active target so subsequent GSD elements are inserted there.
Create a new Geometrical Set (HybridBody) in the active Part and make it the active target for subsequent GSD elements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Name for the new geometrical set | GSD_Set |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds meaningful stateful behavior beyond that: the new set becomes the active target for subsequent GSD elements. It omits any prerequisite (e.g., that an active Part must exist), but the state side effect is a useful addition.
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 sentence with zero waste. The creation action is front-loaded and the side-effect consequence follows immediately.
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 simple single-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is created, where, and the consequential state change. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it could note the active-Part precondition more explicitly.
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% and the single 'name' parameter is fully described with a default ('GSD_Set'). The description adds no naming convention or format detail beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline for high-coverage schemas.
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 (Geometrical Set/HybridBody), plus its location (in the active Part). It also names the resulting state change, making it clearly distinguishable from the sibling catia_gsd_set_active_geoset, which manipulates an existing set.
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 clause 'make it the active target for subsequent GSD elements' implies this is the tool to reach for before adding new GSD geometry, versus catia_gsd_set_active_geoset for switching to an existing set. However, it does not explicitly name that alternative or state exclusion/precondition conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.