Create a centered rectangle in a CATIA V5 sketch by specifying center X, center Y, width, and height in millimeters.
Draw a rectangle centered at (cx, cy) with given width and height. Coordinates and dimensions in mm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cx | No | Center X (mm) | |
| cy | No | Center Y (mm) | |
| width | Yes | Width in mm | |
| height | Yes | Height in mm |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered structurally. The description adds unit context (mm) but does not disclose that geometry is added to the active sketch or any state prerequisites, so it contributes only marginal behavioral detail.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the unit clarification. 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 simple non-destructive geometry tool with full parameter documentation and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The only meaningful omission is the requirement for an active sketch context, which the surrounding sketch tools imply.
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 cx, cy, width, and height are already documented with units in the schema. The description's 'coordinates and dimensions in mm' merely restates that, adding no syntax or default behavior (cx/cy default 0) beyond the structured fields.
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 (rectangle) with the distinguishing 'centered at (cx, cy)' qualifier that separates it from the plane rectangle sibling. Clear, but it never explicitly names catia_sketch_rectangle as the alternative, so the differentiation is left implicit.
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 when-to-use guidance, no comparison against catia_sketch_rectangle (corner-based), and no prerequisite that an active sketch must exist. The agent can infer usage from the name but the description offers no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.