catia_gsd_axis_system

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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-destructive write operation, and the description's 'Create' aligns with that. It adds only that a new local reference frame is produced; it does not disclose prerequisites such as an active document or behavior when X and Y directions are not perpendicular. No contradiction with 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?

A single sentence front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by a compact purpose clause. Every phrase 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?

Adequate for a moderately complex creation tool: the concept, key parameters, and a use case are covered, and the schema documents every parameter. Gaps include no mention of the return value (the created axis system reference), given there is no output schema, and no caveat about CATIA's orthogonalization behavior when X/Y are not perpendicular.

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 baseline holds. The description adds modest interpretive value by connecting origin ('at a point') and the two direction arrays ('explicit X and Y directions') into the concept of a reference frame, but it does not add semantics beyond the schema such as normalization or Z-axis derivation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create an axis system') with clarifying scope ('at a point with explicit X and Y directions') and names its role as a local reference frame. This is enough to distinguish it from GSD siblings like catia_gsd_point and catia_gsd_plane without opening schemas.

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 phrase 'useful as a local reference frame for positioning and measurement' provides a concrete use-case context for when an agent should invoke this tool. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the situational guidance is explicit and actionable.

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