Change the scale of a drawing sheet or an individual view in CATIA V5 to a new numeric value, targeting the active sheet or a named sheet and view.
Change the scale of a sheet or of one view.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| view | No | View name. Empty changes the whole sheet's scale. | |
| scale | Yes | New scale, e.g. 0.5 for half size. | |
| sheet | No | Sheet name. Empty uses the active sheet. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-readOnly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as immediate application, state requirements, or side effects. It does not contradict 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 a single, tightly worded sentence: 'Change the scale of a sheet or of one view.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant words.
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 simple mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to select it. It lacks explicit mention of default behavior (e.g., active sheet), but these details are already in the parameter descriptions.
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%, and each parameter has a clear description. The tool description only restates the sheet/view distinction already present in the schema, adding minimal value beyond what structured fields provide.
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 states a specific verb ('Change'), resource ('scale'), and scope ('of a sheet or of one view'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like catia_drawing_add_view or catia_set_view. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.
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 conveys the tool's purpose but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It implies its usage (when scale needs adjustment) but does not mention any alternative tools or conditions where it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.