catia_create_formula

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

The description adds some context about expression syntax and units, but does not disclose side effects like persistent formula creation, validation failures, or idempotency issues. With annotations indicating a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), the description does not go beyond that to explain consequences of repeated calls or invalid expressions.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the purpose, give an example, and add a use case. No fluff.

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?

The description covers the essential information needed to call the tool - the expression format and target parameter example. It lacks information about error conditions or whether the target must already exist, but given the schema coverage and example, it is fairly complete for a typical call. It does not mention that the formula is a persistent relation, but that may be implied.

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 already describes both parameters with examples. The description reinforces the expression format and notes feature dimensions as valid targets, providing additional context beyond the schema. However, it does not cover the optional name/comment parameters, but those are self-explanatory.

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 function: driving one parameter from an expression. It provides an example and notes feature dimensions as valid targets. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like catia_set_parameter, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It explains the use case - making a model self-adjusting - which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough.

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