Create a SysML ValueType under a specified parent element in a CATIA Magic model. Provide a parent ID and name to add the value type to the model.
Create a SysML ValueType under parent_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| parent_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states the creation action without disclosing any side effects, requirements, or behavior. It does not mention whether it returns the created element, what happens if parent_id is invalid, or any permission requirements. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and falls short.
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 description is one concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no unnecessary words and is highly scannable.
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?
Given the simple nature of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this versus other creation tools, and it does not mention any special behaviors or return conventions. For a straightforward create operation it is sufficient but not thorough.
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 description adds minimal meaning: 'under parent_id' clarifies that parent_id is the parent container. However, it does not explain the 'name' parameter beyond its obvious meaning. Since schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in the schema), the description partially compensates but remains thin.
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 clearly states the action (create), the resource (SysML ValueType), and the parent context (under parent_id). It distinguishes from siblings like create_block and create_value_property by explicitly naming the type being created.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that create_value_property is for value properties, nor does it offer any exclusion criteria or context for selecting this tool over other creation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.