catia_shell

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

Annotations already declare the mutation and safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description usefully clarifies that outer_thickness adds material outward and that face points become openings, but it omits whether an active body is required, whether the feature is added to the tree, or what happens on failure. 'Verified live' is a vague reliability claim rather than disclosure.

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 dense sentence with the core action front-loaded and the parameter behaviors appended. The bilingual 'Shell (Coque)' and the trailing 'Verified live.' are marginal additions but cost little.

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 no output schema, the description covers the geometry well but leaves execution context unstated: required document/body state, whether a new feature is created in the specification tree, and interaction with siblings like catia_thickness. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 50% (name and thickness are documented; outer_thickness and open_face_points are not). The description compensates by explaining that outer_thickness adds material outside the wall and that open_face_points define the removed/open faces, which is exactly the missing semantics.

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?

Names a specific operation (shell/hollow) on a specific resource (the solid), and the parenthetical French synonym plus the geometric outcome make the action unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the adjacent sibling catia_thickness, but the verb+resource pair is concrete enough to select correctly.

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 description explains the geometric result but never states when to use shell versus the closely related catia_thickness, nor any prerequisites (active part/body required). Usage must be inferred entirely from the mechanics described.

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