catia_add_design_table

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

Annotations already communicate that this is not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, and not open-world. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the attached file's columns drive parameters and rows become configurations, which clarifies the outcome of the operation. It does not discuss edge cases like overwriting an existing design table, but the annotation baseline lowers the burden.

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 concise sentences deliver the core purpose and outcome without filler. The information is front-loaded and every clause contributes to understanding the tool.

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 tool with four parameters, one required, complete schema descriptions, and annotations covering safety, the description sufficiently explains what attaching a design table does and why it is used. It does not mention return values, but there is no output schema and the operation is an action rather than a query, so this is not a significant gap.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented with descriptions. The tool description adds some context about the file format ('Excel or tab-separated') and the resulting configuration behavior, but it does not explain the remaining parameters (name, comment, copy_data) beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Attach a design table', then explains its purpose with 'columns drive the document's parameters' and 'Each row becomes a selectable configuration'. This is distinct from sibling tools such as catia_list_design_tables or catia_set_design_table_configuration, so an agent could identify the right operation without inspecting the schema.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like catia_set_design_table_configuration or catia_list_design_tables. There are no explicit exclusions or conditions, so the agent is left to infer usage solely from the verb 'attach'.

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