Draw a rectangle in the active sketch from two opposite corners, creating four lines that form a closed profile; coordinates are in millimeters.
Draw a rectangle in the active sketch defined by two opposite corners. Creates 4 lines forming a closed profile. Coordinates in mm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x1 | Yes | First corner X (mm) | |
| x2 | Yes | Opposite corner X (mm) | |
| y1 | Yes | First corner Y (mm) | |
| y2 | Yes | Opposite corner Y (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 this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds genuine behavioral detail the annotations lack: that four lines are created as a closed profile. It does not disclose what happens on repeated invocation (relevant since idempotentHint=false) or whether the sketch must be editable/active.
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?
Three short sentences with zero filler: the action, the resulting geometry, and the unit convention, delivered front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.
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 tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers action, result, and units adequately. Minor gap: no mention of failure behavior when no active sketch exists or whether geometric constraints are auto-applied.
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 all four coordinates and their mm units are already documented in the schema; the description only restates that coordinates are in mm. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries parameter semantics.
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) plus the defining method (two opposite corners), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling catia_sketch_centered_rectangle. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction, but the geometry definition is unambiguous.
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 the prerequisite of an existing active sketch, which is useful context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and never mentions the closest alternative, catia_sketch_centered_rectangle, leaving the choice between the two rectangle tools to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.