catia_groove

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description is not required to restate those. The description adds the key behavioral fact that this is a subtractive operation ('Cut material'), which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose details like whether the sketch must be closed, how the axis is resolved, or what happens if the groove cannot be computed.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core action ('Cut material by revolving a sketch profile around an axis') and immediately adds the sibling relationship. Every word earns its place; there is 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 feature-creation tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the operation, the input concept, and the sibling relationship. The only minor gap is that it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an active part, an existing sketch) or failure behavior, but these are not critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly given the schema.

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 all four parameters (axis, name, angle, sketch). The description adds the conceptual meaning of the parameters (revolving a sketch profile around an axis) but does not add syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. 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 states a specific verb ('Cut material'), a specific resource ('revolving a sketch profile around an axis'), and explicitly names its counterpart (catia_shaft). This clearly distinguishes it from the many other feature-creation tools in the sibling list.

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 identifies the tool as the subtractive counterpart of catia_shaft, which gives an agent a clear context for when to use it (when a revolved cut is needed rather than a revolved add). It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools beyond catia_shaft, but the counterpart framing provides sufficient usage guidance.

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