catia_add_new_product

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to restate that this is a mutation. It adds the useful context that the created sub-assembly is empty and added inside the active assembly. However, it does not disclose behavior around naming conflicts, parent resolution, or what happens if no active assembly exists.

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 clear sentence, front-loaded with the primary verb 'Create' and the resource 'new empty sub-assembly.' Every word contributes meaningful context, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 create operation with two fully described optional parameters, the description is sufficient: it states what is created, its nature, and its location. Given the schema covers parameters and annotations cover mutability, the main missing context is when to choose this over sibling creation tools, which is addressed under usage guidance.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters (name and parent) and covers 100% of the schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond reinforcing that the operation creates a sub-assembly, which aligns with the parameter names and descriptions already present.

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 identifies a specific action: 'Create a new empty sub-assembly inside the active assembly.' It names the verb, resource type, and scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from closely named siblings like catia_add_new_part or catia_new_product, but 'empty sub-assembly' is specific enough to distinguish the core intent.

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 for when to use this tool over alternatives such as catia_add_new_part, catia_new_product, or catia_add_component. The only implied context is 'inside the active assembly,' but there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or criteria for choosing another sibling.

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