catia_new_part

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so safety is largely covered. The description adds that the created document is empty and that it targets CATIA V5, but says nothing about permissions, whether the new document becomes active, or side effects on existing documents.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the disambiguating scope. No filler or redundancy.

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 document-creation tool the description covers the essentials, but with no output schema it does not indicate what is returned (e.g., a document handle/name) or what state the agent should expect afterward (active document, readiness for sketching).

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?

There is a single optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains 'name'. The description adds no naming conventions, defaults, or behavior when the name is omitted; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 new empty Part document') and adds scope context that a Part is for single-body 3D modeling with sketches and features. It does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like catia_new_product or catia_add_new_part, so the distinction must be inferred.

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 line 'A Part is used for single-body 3D modeling' implicitly signals when this tool applies versus a Product/Assembly context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or naming of alternatives such as catia_new_product.

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