catia_sketch_constraint

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

Annotations already disclose the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the scoping fact that the constraint targets the active sketch, but says nothing about what happens on failure, whether over-constraining is rejected, or how the constraint is identified afterwards.

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 scope. The type enumeration is somewhat redundant with the schema enum, which costs it a point, but there is no filler or ambiguity.

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 non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the description is serviceable but thin: it omits the precondition that a sketch must be active, does not explain that geometry indices refer to the existing sketch geometry list, and gives no failure behavior. Enough to attempt a call, not enough to call it reliably.

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%, including enum values and the note that 'value' is required for distance/radius/angle, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's type list merely restates the enum and adds no extra semantics such as index conventions or relational constraints needing two indices.

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 and resource ('Add a dimensional constraint to the active sketch') and enumerates the supported constraint types, so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. However, it never distinguishes itself from constraint-related siblings such as catia_fix_constraint, catia_coincidence_constraint, or catia_angle_constraint, which an agent might reasonably confuse it with.

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?

Mentioning 'the active sketch' implicitly tells the agent this belongs to the sketch-editing workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (an open/active sketch), and no signposting of when to prefer this generic tool over the specialized constraint siblings.

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