catia_sketch_circle

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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the agent knows this mutates the model and is not repeat-safe. The description adds only the active-sketch scoping; it says nothing about failure when no sketch is active or how the new geometry is returned. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 action and then the unit convention. The unit sentence is largely redundant with the schema, costing a point, but there is no padding.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the basic action but omits the preconditions (active sketch required), error behavior, and what is created. Adequate but with clear gaps given the rich sibling set.

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% (cx, cy, radius, construction all documented with units and defaults), so the schema already carries parameter semantics. The description's 'Coordinates and radius in mm' merely restates units the schema provides and says nothing about the construction flag's effect.

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+resource ('draw a circle') and scopes it to the active sketch, which is enough to separate it from siblings like catia_sketch_arc, catia_sketch_point, or catia_sketch_rectangle. It does not differentiate itself from catia_gsd_circle (the generative-shape counterpart), leaving that distinction to the agent.

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 phrase 'in the active sketch' implies context but never states the prerequisite (an active sketch must exist / be created via catia_create_sketch or catia_sketch_profile). There is no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no naming of alternatives such as catia_sketch_arc.

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