catia_drawing_add_view

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes that the view geometry is not computed until catia_drawing_update is called, and it implies the operation modifies the drawing sheet. Since annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description's mention of the update requirement adds value by clarifying the incomplete nature of the operation without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, mentions key adjustable attributes (orientation, placement, scale), and ends with the critical follow-up action. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 7-parameter tool with all parameters defaulted and fully documented in the schema, the description covers the essential workflow: add a view, specify its placement and orientation, then update. It mentions the prerequisite of an open 3D document and the need for a follow-up call, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It does not describe return values or error conditions, but given the simple, non-output-schema tool, this is adequate.

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?

All 7 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'standard orientation, where the view goes on the sheet, and its scale' loosely mirrors the schema fields but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify units, defaults, or edge cases beyond what the schema states.

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 generative view') and the resource ('to a drawing sheet'), specifying the type of view and the context (open 3D document). It distinguishes from siblings like catia_drawing_add_text or catia_drawing_add_sheet by focusing on view creation, and the verb 'add' plus resource 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?

The description provides a clear follow-up action ('Call catia_drawing_update afterwards') and implies a prerequisite (an open 3D document). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative view-related tools like catia_set_view or catia_drawing_delete_view, nor state when not to use this tool. The usage context is implied rather than explicit, leaving some room for an agent to select incorrectly.

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