catia_drawing_delete_view

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is destructive. The description adds the specific target (a view on a drawing sheet) but doesn't disclose consequences like whether dependent elements are also deleted, whether the operation is undoable, or whether the sheet must be active. With destructiveHint covering the main safety concern, a 3 is appropriate.

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, efficient sentence that states the operation clearly. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with two parameters, though it could add a brief usage note without becoming bloated.

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 destructive operation with no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the drawing must be active), error conditions, or what happens to associated elements. The annotations cover the destructive nature, but an agent might still be uncertain about edge cases.

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 both parameters (view and sheet) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Delete a view from a drawing sheet' clearly states the verb (delete), the resource (view), and the context (drawing sheet). It is specific enough to distinguish from generic delete tools like catia_delete_element, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other drawing-related tools.

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 context (drawing sheet views) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like catia_delete_element or catia_sketch_delete_element. The sibling list contains many delete-type tools, so an agent would benefit from explicit routing guidance, but the drawing-specific scope is reasonably clear.

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