catia_update_assembly

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description usefully discloses what the operation actually does - recompute/solve constraints and reposition components - which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about failure modes (over-constrained or unsolvable assemblies) or what state must exist beforehand.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding; the parenthetical French term is minor noise but the effect statement follows immediately.

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 zero-argument tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essential premise and effect. It is nearly complete; only the preconditions and failure behavior are absent.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the rubric baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it does not introduce spurious argument hints.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (update the assembly) and clarifies the mechanism: solves constraints and moves components. That mechanism meaningfully separates it from siblings like catia_move_component and catia_update_part, though it never names those alternatives directly.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as catia_move_component or catia_update_part. Usage is left entirely to inference from the words 'update the assembly'.

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