catia_apply_material

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, so the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: applying a material changes subsequent mass-property reporting by supplying a real density. It does not mention overwriting existing materials, but this is not a serious gap given 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?

Two tight sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the action and target; the second gives a valuable downstream consequence. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 mutation tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool does, where it applies, and the observable effect on mass properties. It could mention what happens if a material is already applied or if the body does not exist, but these are not essential for correct invocation.

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 already documents all four parameters with descriptions, and schema coverage is 100%. The description's mention of 'active part or a named body' mirrors the body parameter but adds little beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific action ('Apply a material'), a precise resource ('CATIA catalogue', 'active part or a named body'), and the consequence for downstream mass properties. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like catia_list_materials and catia_mass_properties.

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 clearly states the target scope ('active part or a named body') and the practical reason to use it (so catia_mass_properties reports a real mass). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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