Add a new sheet to the active drawing and make it current. Set its name, scale, landscape orientation, and paper size to organize multi-sheet drafting.
Add a sheet to the active drawing and make it current.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Name for the sheet. | |
| scale | No | Sheet scale, e.g. 1.0 or 0.5. | |
| landscape | No | Landscape orientation. | |
| paper_size | No | A0-A4 or A-F. | A3 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all false (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), providing no behavioral signals. The description adds one behavioral detail: 'make it current,' indicating a side effect on the active sheet. However, it does not disclose potential errors, side effects on existing sheets, or any other behavioral traits. With neutral annotations, the description carries some burden but only partially fulfills it.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and the key effect. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 adequately covers the core operation and its immediate effect, and the schema covers parameter details. It does not explicitly state that an active drawing must exist, but the phrase 'active drawing' implies it. There is no output schema, so return value explanation is not expected. The description is sufficient for a simple mutation tool, though it could be slightly more explicit about prerequisites.
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%, with all four parameters (name, scale, landscape, paper_size) having descriptions. The tool description does not mention any parameters, so it adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
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 action: 'Add a sheet to the active drawing and make it current.' It specifies the verb (add), the resource (sheet), the context (active drawing), and an additional effect (make it current). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like catia_drawing_add_view (adds a view) and catia_drawing_list_sheets (lists sheets).
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 by mentioning the 'active drawing' as a prerequisite, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions. It provides minimal context but no explicit guidance on selection among drawing-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.