catia_drawing_update

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict these. Although it does not explicitly mention that the operation is non-destructive, it implies regeneration, which is non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the scope (every generative view, from current state) which is useful context beyond 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 a single concise sentence and a trailing instruction. It is front-loaded with the main action and followed by usage context. Every word is purposeful, with no fluff.

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 tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It lacks details on return values or error handling, but such information is not required given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering idempotency. The trigger for usage is explicit, making it reasonably complete for agent decision-making.

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 schema already documents the parameters. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., default behavior for sheet name). Thus, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (regenerate), the resource (generative views on a sheet), and the trigger (after changing the 3D model). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'catia_update' (which likely updates the drawing) by focusing on generative views.

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 explicitly says 'Run this after changing the part,' which gives clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but it is self-contained for its purpose, and the trigger is clear enough for an agent to infer when to call it.

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