catia_gsd_thick_surface

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent, closed-world). The description adds the non-obvious placement fact that the resulting solid goes into the active body, but says nothing about prerequisites (e.g. surface must live in the same part), failure modes, or what is returned.

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, front-loaded with the verb+resource+mechanism. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding or restated from the schema.

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 4-parameter creation tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers the essential operation and placement. It is slightly thin on prerequisites and on whether the created feature is returned, but nothing critical blocks correct invocation.

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 all four parameters (name, surface, thickness1, thickness2) are already documented, including the default of 0 for thickness2. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource: turns a surface into a solid by adding thickness, and names the underlying CATIA operation (Part Design ThickSurface). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby sibling catia_thickness/shell tools, which a reader could confuse with this one.

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 input requirement (a surface) and outcome (a solid) imply when this applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives such as catia_thickness or catia_shell.

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