catia_add_new_part

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, so the description adds only the location constraint ('directly inside the active assembly'). It does not disclose what happens if no assembly is active, whether the part gets a default body, or what side effects occur on the assembly tree. For a mutation tool, this is a minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, and it is immediately clear what the tool does. There is no unnecessary fluff or repetition.

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 simple creation tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose but leaves some gaps. It does not state the requirement of an active assembly (it implies it), nor does it explain failure modes or the expected state of the part after creation. Given the large number of sibling tools, it could benefit from clarifying when this is preferable to catia_new_part or catia_add_new_product.

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% (both parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small extra context: 'directly inside the active assembly' implies the parent parameter is optional and that the part is placed in the active assembly when no parent is given. However, it does not elaborate on the syntax or format of the name or parent, so it adds limited value beyond the schema.

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 (a brand-new empty part), and the context (directly inside the active assembly). It is specific enough to distinguish from similar tools like catia_new_part or catia_add_new_product, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The phrase 'empty part' and 'inside the active assembly' add valuable specificity beyond the name.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., catia_add_new_product, catia_new_part, catia_add_component). It does not mention prerequisites like having an active assembly open, nor does it explain when the parent parameter should be used. Agents are left to infer usage from the name and context.

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