catia_drawing_add_text

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

The description is consistent with the annotations: 'Place' implies a write operation matching readOnlyHint=false and is not presented as destructive. However, it adds little behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as whether each call creates a new annotation or how the tool interacts with the current/active document.

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, tightly worded sentence with a clear action, target resource, and illustrative examples. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 relatively simple creation tool with a complete parameter schema and annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It leaves minor details unstated, such as the need for an active drawing document and the absence of return-value information, but neither is critical to selecting or invoking this tool.

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 parameter details are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameters such as position, sheet, view, or height.

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 a specific verb and object: 'Place a text annotation on a drawing sheet,' with content examples like note, title, or revision mark. This makes the tool's function unambiguous and clearly distinct from the many sketch, solid, and drawing-management siblings.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or prerequisites are given. The description does not mention that a drawing document must be active, nor does it point to alternatives among the drawing-related sibling tools.

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