catia_assembly_constraint

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

Annotations are all false (readOnly=false, destructive=false, etc.), so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add context about how geometry tokens resolve (against every visible component) and that dimensional kinds require a value, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose side effects such as adding a constraint to the assembly tree, error handling on invalid references, or any impact on existing constraints. It's transparent enough for a mutation tool but leaves gaps.

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 compact and efficient: one sentence states the purpose, the second provides essential reference-token details and highlights the value requirement. Every sentence earns its place without repetition, and the critical purpose is front-loaded. No fluff or irrelevant text.

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 moderate-complexity tool (4 params, array input, no output schema), the description covers the main usage aspects: how to reference geometry, that dimensional kinds need values, and points to a helper tool (catia_list_faces). It does not explicitly mention prerequisites like needing an active assembly document, or common failure modes (e.g., invalid references), but the 'inside an assembly' phrase implies the environment. Overall, sufficient for an agent to call it correctly in most cases, with minor gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% and already documents each parameter (kind list, value units, elements as reference tokens). The description adds beyond the schema by explaining the token syntax ('face#3' and 'face@x,y,z') and reinforcing that dimensional kinds need a value, which clarifies how to fill in the 'elements' and 'value' fields. This adds meaningful semantic context, so it merits a 4.

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 tool's action ('Constrain components to each other') and identifies the resource (components in an assembly). It distinguishes from sketch constraints by specifying 'components' and referencing assembly contexts. However, it doesn't explicitly say 'create a new constraint' or name alternatives like catia_sketch_constraint, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 implies usage in an assembly context and gives a pointer to catia_list_faces for reference resolution. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., catia_sketch_constraint, catia_list_constraints, catia_delete_constraint), nor does it mention prerequisites like having an active assembly. Usage guidance is mainly implicit, earning a 3.

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