catia_sketch_arc

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

Annotations disclose the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description need not restate safety. It does add useful domain context — the counter-clockwise angle convention from +X — but omits that geometry is added to the currently active sketch and what error conditions apply.

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 written sentences with zero filler; the geometric definition comes first and the angle convention immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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 5-required-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers geometry but not prerequisites (active sketch required) or the creation result. Enough to call it, not enough to call it correctly in context.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning the schema lacks: the angular reference frame and direction (counter-clockwise from positive X). That convention is essential to interpreting start_angle/end_angle correctly and is not stated anywhere in 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?

States a specific verb (draw) and resource (circular arc) plus the exact construction method (center, radius, start/end angles), which cleanly separates it from siblings like catia_sketch_circle, catia_sketch_profile, and catia_sketch_two_circle_contour. An agent can tell what it produces without opening any schema.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention that an active sketch must be open/created first (catia_create_sketch), and no statement of what happens if no sketch is active. The agent must infer the workflow from sibling names alone.

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