catia_sketch_profile

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: ends are shared sketch points, producing a real closed contour, and arc endpoints must be equidistant from the center. It still omits whether an active sketch is required and what happens on failure.

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?

The description is three sentences and front-loads the core purpose before adding use-case and arc-detail notes. It is dense but mostly earns its space; the parenthetical axis mention is slightly confusing because this tool has no axis parameter.

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 sketch-geometry creation tool with no output schema and non-destructive annotations, the description covers purpose, downstream use cases, contour semantics, and arc construction. A key gap remains the sketch context: it does not state that an active sketch is required or how this interacts with catia_create_sketch and catia_close_sketch.

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 only 33%. The description compensates for arc parameters by explaining that arcs use center + end point with radius equal to center-start distance, but it does not explain the closed parameter or clarify the top-level segments structure beyond a general chain description.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: drawing a connected chain of lines and arcs that form a real closed contour. It explicitly distinguishes this from separate line/arc tools whose ends only nearly meet, and it names the primary downstream use cases (Pad/Pocket profiles, half-profiles of revolution).

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?

It clearly says this is the tool of choice for non-trivial Pad/Pocket profiles and half-profiles of revolution, and it names catia_sketch_line as the alternative for adding an axis. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it (e.g., simple shapes already covered by catia_sketch_rectangle or catia_sketch_circle).

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