catia_thread

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a mutating, non-destructive, non-idempotent, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful context that the feature is cosmetic as in the GUI and verified live, but it does not describe side effects like feature creation in the tree, error behavior, or repeat-call behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and the example earns its place by tying the three numeric parameters together. The parenthetical French GUI terms and 'Verified live' add slight verbosity but no serious bloat.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical non-obvious parameters and gives a working example. It leaves the boolean left_hand undocumented, but the core invocation path is adequately described given schema and annotation support.

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 63%, so the description must compensate. It does so well for the two ambiguous required array parameters by mapping lateral_face_point to the cylinder and limit_face_point to the start face, and the M100x4 example clarifies diameter, pitch, and depth. Optional left_hand is not explained in either schema or description, a minor gap.

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 and resource: thread / tap on a cylindrical face starting from a planar limit face. It distinguishes from siblings like catia_hole by describing the exact geometric context and cosmetic nature.

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?

Implicitly tells when the tool applies by requiring a cylindrical lateral face and a planar limit face where the thread starts, and gives a concrete example. It does not explicitly compare to catia_hole or say when not to use it, so guidance is contextual but not complete.

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