Project curves or points onto a support surface or plane in CATIA V5 using XY, YZ, ZX, or a named element.
Project a curve/point onto a support surface or plane.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Optional name for the result | |
| element | Yes | Name of the element to project | |
| support | Yes | Projection support: 'xy', 'yz', 'zx', or element name |
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, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description restates the operation but adds no behavioral context such as what feature is created, where it is stored, or whether it modifies existing geometry.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the operation being described.
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?
The description is minimal but the input schema is fully documented and annotations cover the safety profile. It lacks detail about the resulting projection feature and active geoset context, leaving some gaps for a GSD modeling 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema documents all three parameters including the support values 'xy', 'yz', 'zx'. The description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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, 'project', and its resources, 'curve/point' onto a 'support surface or plane'. This clearly identifies the operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling GSD tools such as intersection or split.
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 description provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives among the many GSD siblings. Its purpose is only implied by the verb, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.