catia_rect_pattern

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the description only needs to add context. It adds that the pattern is along two global axes, a behavioral constraint, but does not explain what gets created in the tree, whether the source feature is modified, or what the operation returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical French translation is optional but not wasteful, and the purpose is immediately clear.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool, the description omits workflow context: which feature gets patterned, how to choose or default feature_name, what happens after creation, or any usage caveats. Although the schema and annotations are rich, the description is too thin to be considered complete.

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 8 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning, syntax, or defaults beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 operation: rectangular pattern of a feature along two global axes. The term 'rectangular' implicitly differentiates from the sibling catia_circ_pattern, but no sibling is named, and the verb is implicit rather than explicit ('Pattern' as a noun).

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus catia_circ_pattern, catia_mirror, or other patterning tools. No prerequisites, context, or alternatives are mentioned.

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