Create a swept surface in CATIA V5 by sweeping a profile curve along a guide curve. Use for explicit sweep geometry generation from two named curves.
Create a swept surface by sweeping a profile curve along a guide curve (explicit sweep).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Optional name for the surface | |
| guide | Yes | Guide curve element name | |
| profile | Yes | Profile curve 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 supply the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's only extra claim is that a surface is created. It discloses nothing about prerequisites (e.g., an active geoset, pre-existing profile/guide elements), what happens on failure with invalid curves, or reversibility, which matters for a model-mutating feature tool.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the mechanism (profile along guide) is placed before the disambiguating parenthetical. Slightly terse for a geometry-creation tool but every clause earns its place.
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 feature-creation tool with no output schema, the description identifies the operation but omits preconditions and the resulting context (geoset, feature naming). Annotations cover safety, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.
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 schema fully documents name, guide, and profile; the description adds only the conceptual mapping of profile/guide to the sweep operation. Baseline 3 is appropriate when structured data carries the parameter detail.
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 precise verb ('Create a swept surface') and the exact inputs used (profile curve along a guide curve), which clearly separates it from generic surface creation. The parenthetical 'explicit sweep' adds CATIA-specific disambiguation, though it never names or contrasts a sibling tool directly.
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 conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The agent must infer from the name that this is the sweep tool rather than extrude, revolve, or multi_section_surface, but the description offers no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.