Mutually trims two CATIA elements, keeping one side of each; reverse flags flip which sides are retained.
Mutually trim two elements, keeping one side of each. Use reverse flags to flip which sides are kept.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Optional name for the result | |
| element1 | Yes | First element name | |
| element2 | Yes | Second element name | |
| reverse1 | No | Keep the other side of element1 | |
| reverse2 | No | Keep the other side of element2 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds that one side of each element is kept and that reverse flags flip the kept side, but it does not clarify whether originals are modified or whether the result is a new element. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.
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 the primary operation front-loaded and no wasted words. The second sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema descriptions of reverse1 and reverse2, but it remains compact.
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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description is adequate on the operation but omits what happens to the original elements or what the return value is. Annotations cover the safety profile, but an agent would still need to know whether the input elements are consumed or preserved.
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 five parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description only repeats the reverse flags' effect without adding syntax, format, or selection order details beyond what the schema provides.
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 (mutually trim) and resource (two elements), making the operation clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling operations like catia_gsd_split or catia_gsd_intersection, which also modify elements.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states the operation without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.