catia_pad

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

Annotations already declare the operation is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) that is not destructive and not idempotent, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the result is a solid generated along the sketch normal, which is useful context, but it omits prerequisites (active part/document, sketch existence) and failure behavior when no sketch is present.

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 tightly worded sentences that front-load the core action and then the geometric result. No filler, no 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 mutation tool with rich, fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety, the description covers the essential operation. However it omits prerequisites (must have a sketch and active part) and any output/return expectation, leaving some gaps an agent would need for reliable 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 the schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly, including the subtle second_height vs symmetric distinction. The description only echoes 'along the normal to the sketch plane', adding no parameter detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is 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 ('Create') and resource ('Pad/extrusion') and clarifies what it produces: a 3D solid from a 2D profile along the sketch-plane normal. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like catia_pocket (material removal) or catia_gsd_extrude (surface extrusion), which an agent must infer.

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 phrase 'from the last sketch' implies a prerequisite sketch must exist, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to alternatives such as catia_pocket or catia_gsd_extrude. Usage must be inferred from the tool name alone.

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