catia_update_part

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and repeatability profile is covered. The description usefully adds that all features are recalculated, which signals a potentially long-running rebuild, but says nothing about failure modes or what happens to suppressed/failed features.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the effect. No filler or repetition of the name/title.

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 parameterless mutation with no output schema, the description covers what it does and its effect, but omits prerequisites (must a document/part be active?), behavior on failure, and how it differs from catia_update_assembly. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema (empty object) is self-explanatory. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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+resource: 'Force update/rebuild of the active part' and clarifies the effect ('Recalculates all features'). It implicitly contrasts with sibling catia_update_assembly by scoping to the 'active part', though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 word 'Force' hints at the use case (rebuilding a part whose features are stale or failed), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative such as catia_update_assembly. Usage is only implied.

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