Create a plane through three points using existing element names or [x,y,z] coordinates in CATIA V5. Specify point1, point2, and point3 to define the plane.
Create a plane through three points (element names or [x,y,z]).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Optional name for the plane | |
| point1 | Yes | ||
| point2 | Yes | ||
| point3 | 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, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety and mutation profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic create action, such as where the plane is added, whether it is inserted into the active geoset, or what happens with collinear points. It neither contradicts nor meaningfully extends the annotations.
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 zero filler. The purpose and input mode are both stated compactly.
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 geometric creation tool with no output schema, the description is adequate to permit invocation. It leaves gaps around the optional name parameter, the target geoset, and return behavior, but the essential action and input forms are present.
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?
The description notes that points may be 'element names or [x,y,z]', which mirrors the schema's oneOf structure for the three point parameters. However, with reported schema description coverage of 25%, it does not compensate for the undocumented optional 'name' parameter or add any syntax details beyond what the schema already states. Minimum viable parameter guidance.
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 plane through three points.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like catia_gsd_line or catia_gsd_plane_offset, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. Clear enough that an agent knows the core operation.
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?
Provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It implies the tool is for creating a plane from three points, but does not say when to choose it over catia_gsd_plane_offset or other plane construction methods. No exclusions or context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.