catia_thickness

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=false. The description adds useful sign behavior for offset ('negative removes') and claims live verification, but it does not explain return values, failure behavior, or state effects beyond that.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary background. 'Verified live' is slightly extraneous, but overall the structure is appropriately terse.

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 CAD modeling operation with no output schema, the description is too terse. It omits prerequisites like active body/document, what feature is created, error behavior, and the meaning of face_points.

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 33%: only the optional name parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds mm units and sign behavior for offset, but face_points remains unexplained as an array of three-number arrays, so the description does not compensate for the two undocumented required parameters.

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 operation: offset the faces through face_points by 'offset' mm, naming the CATIA feature 'Thickness (Épaisseur)'. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the shell, thick surface, or offset surface siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites. The only hint is '(negative removes)', which describes parameter behavior rather than tool selection.

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