Create a 3D line between two points defined by existing element names or [x,y,z] coordinates in mm, optionally naming the line.
Create a 3D line between two points. Each point is an existing element name or [x, y, z] coordinates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Optional name for the line | |
| point1 | Yes | ||
| point2 | Yes |
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, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is largely covered. The description does add one non-obvious behavioral fact — passing coordinates creates a new point element as a side effect — but omits what the line is attached to (active geoset) and what the call returns.
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 with zero filler; the action comes first and the point-input duality follows immediately. Nothing redundant or padded.
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 non-read-only geometry-creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core input contract but leaves gaps: the containment context (which geoset/body receives the line), the effect of the optional 'name', and any return value or failure mode are unaddressed.
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 only 33%, but the description's statement that each point is 'an existing element name or [x, y, z] coordinates' essentially restates the oneOf branches already documented in the schema, and says nothing about the optional 'name' parameter. It neither compensates for the coverage gap nor adds syntax 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 and resource ('Create a 3D line between two points') with scope indicators ('3D', GSD context) that separate it from the 2D catia_sketch_line sibling. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
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. does it require an active geoset?), and no routing to alternatives such as catia_gsd_spline or catia_sketch_line. The second sentence is parameter detail, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.