Build a fill surface inside CATIA V5 from one closed curve or several connected curves forming a closed contour. Provide boundary curve names in contour order to create the bounded surface.
Create a Fill surface bounded by a closed contour of curves (one closed curve or several connected curves).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Optional name for the surface | |
| boundaries | Yes | Boundary curve element names, in contour order |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a non-destructive creation operation. The description adds the constraint that boundaries must form a closed contour, which is useful, but it does not cover error behavior, required permissions, or where the result is created.
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 that states the action, the result, and the geometric constraint without any wasted words or redundancy.
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 creation tool with no output schema, the description lacks context about where the surface is placed (e.g., active geoset) or what happens on failure. Annotations cover safety, and the schema is fully documented, but this contextual gap keeps it at a minimum viable level.
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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics: the boundaries must form a closed contour and can be one closed curve or several connected curves. This clarifies how to use the boundaries parameter beyond the schema's 'in contour order' note.
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 (Create) and resource (Fill surface) with a precise geometric constraint (bounded by a closed contour of curves). It clearly conveys what the tool does, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings like catia_gsd_close_surface or catia_gsd_blend.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states the operation without mentioning prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or any sibling tools to consider instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.