Create a point in the active sketch with X and Y coordinates in millimeters to place geometry accurately in CATIA V5.
Create a point in the active sketch. Coordinates in mm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | X coordinate (mm) | |
| y | Yes | Y coordinate (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, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent write. The description adds only the sketch scoping and units context, with no detail on failure behavior, required sketch state, or what happens if the point already exists.
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 with no waste, and the core action is front-loaded before the units clarification.
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 two-parameter creation tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, this is nearly complete. It could note the requirement that an active sketch exist, but nothing essential is missing.
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% and both parameters already document their units ('X coordinate (mm)'), so the description's 'Coordinates in mm' is redundant. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does all the parameter work.
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 ('Create a point') and scopes it to the active sketch, which helps distinguish it from the sibling catia_gsd_point. However, it never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.
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?
'In the active sketch' implies the prerequisite that a sketch must exist and be active, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of the GSD point alternative. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.