catia_new_product

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent creation with no open-world access. The description adds that the resulting document is 'empty', which is useful context. It does not disclose default naming behavior, what happens on a name collision, or where the document is created, so it adds only limited value beyond annotations.

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 action, and each sentence carries distinct information (what is created, and what the concept is for). No waste.

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 creation tool with one optional parameter, existing annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The only meaningful gap is what happens with naming (default name or collision handling), which is minor for this 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% for the single optional 'name' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description contributes no additional syntax, default, or constraint information beyond what structured data provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new empty Product (assembly) document in CATIA V5') and clarifies the domain concept ('a Product is used to assemble multiple Parts'). This implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling catia_new_part, though it never names that sibling 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?

The clause about assembling multiple Parts implies when a Product is appropriate versus a Part, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. Usage is left to inference from the domain explanation.

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