catia_create_parameter

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation and non-destructive safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context about the parameter's role in the model, but it does not disclose behavioral details beyond that, such as behavior on duplicate names or whether the active document must be a part.

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 front-loads the core action and purpose. Every clause adds meaning without repetition or filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 full schema coverage and minimal annotations, the description is nearly complete: it defines the object, its types, and its intended use. The only gaps are implied prerequisites like an active part document and behavior on name collisions, which are common to many CATIA tools and not explicitly required here.

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%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters, including types, defaults, and units. The description adds minimal semantic value by grouping parameter types as 'length, angle, number, string or flag,' which mostly mirrors the schema's 'length | angle | real | integer | string | boolean' enumeration.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'user parameter' and states its purpose: to drive the model and be referenced by formulas and feature dimensions. This clearly distinguishes it from related sibling tools like catia_set_parameter or catia_delete_parameter, which have different operations on the same resource.

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 when to use the tool ('to drive the model' with named lengths, angles, etc.) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as catia_set_parameter for modifying an existing parameter. The intended usage is inferable but not directly contrasted with siblings.

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