catia_shaft

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the sketch/profile constraint that will cause failure and the axis source options. It says nothing about what the operation returns or what happens if the axis is invalid, but for this feature type the disclosed constraint is the meaningful one.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the operation, then the axis options, then the failure precondition. Every clause carries information an agent needs to call this correctly; there is no filler.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema to explain, the description covers the operation, axis semantics, and the geometric precondition. It is slightly incomplete on how sketch_name interacts with 'the last sketch' phrasing and does not mention the default angle, but those are covered by the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description genuinely adds meaning: it explains what 'sketch_line' refers to concretely (a catia_sketch_line with is_axis=true) and clarifies 'h'/'v' as the sketch's own absolute axes with a worked XY example. That maps the enum values to real modeling concepts rather than restating the schema.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a Shaft (revolution) from the last sketch') and immediately distinguishes a revolution from other feature types by explaining the axis mechanism. It does not explicitly name the closest siblings (catia_groove, catia_pad), so an agent must infer the boundary, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

It states the precondition for use ('the last sketch' and 'the closed profile must lie entirely on one side of the axis'), which is the key gating context for a revolve. It gives no explicit when-not guidance or alternative tools (e.g. groove for revolutions that cut), so it stops short of a 5.

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