catia_draft

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

Annotations provide no safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the full burden. While it states that a draft angle is applied, it does not disclose side effects such as feature creation, body modification, reversibility, or prerequisites beyond the listed inputs. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentences with zero fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the necessary inputs are mentioned succinctly. Every sentence 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 CAD feature that modifies geometry, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain what the result looks like (e.g., a feature in the tree) or mention how default behaviors work (like pulling_direction defaulting to neutral element, which is in schema). With no output schema and no safety annotations, more context about the resulting feature and side effects would be helpful.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds value by explaining the neutral element's role ('the draft pivots about') and clarifying the pulling direction concept, which goes beyond the schema's field descriptions. This justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 a specific action—'Apply a draft angle to faces'—with a clear purpose ('so a moulded or cast part can be released from the tool'). This distinguishes it from sibling operations like fillets, chamfers, or shells, and no other tool covers this exact functionality.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (for moulded or cast parts needing release) and lists the required inputs (faces, neutral element, pulling direction). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of the top score.

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