catia_gsd_join

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description omits genuinely useful behavior: whether the source elements are consumed or preserved, whether the result is a new named element, and what happens if the inputs are non-contiguous or of mixed type.

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 the verb leading and no filler; nothing is wasted. It is slightly under-specified rather than over-long, but structurally clean.

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 operation with no output schema, the description should explain the return (is the joined element returned or just created?) and the fate of the inputs. Neither is addressed, leaving the agent unable to predict the effect of a non-idempotent operation.

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 both parameters (name, elements) are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The phrase 'two or more' loosely mirrors the minItems constraint but adds no syntax, ordering, or format detail beyond the schema.

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 ('join/assemble') and resource ('curves or surfaces') with the output shape ('into one element'), which distinguishes it from siblings like catia_gsd_trim and catia_gsd_split. It stops short of naming the closest alternative operators (e.g., catia_gsd_close_surface) that an agent might confuse it with.

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 on when to reach for join versus trim, split, close_surface, or boolean operations. There is no statement of prerequisites (e.g., curves must be contiguous) or when-not-to-use conditions; the agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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