catia_gsd_blend

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

Annotations already declare the operation is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds that it creates a transition surface, which is the key behavioral outcome. However, it does not mention side effects such as where the surface is placed, whether it appears in the active geoset, or how optional supports affect the result.

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 clear sentence with no filler: it names the action, the inputs, and the outcome in that order. It is concise while still conveying the essential purpose.

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?

The description is adequate for a straightforward parametric surface creation tool, and the schema fills in parameter details. However, it does not explain the purpose of the optional support surfaces, what a successful call returns, or how this tool relates to similar GSD surface tools. These gaps are meaningful for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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 every parameter already has a meaningful description. The tool description does not need to repeat that detail; it simply frames the operation at a high level. This fits the baseline for a fully documented schema without adding extra parameter-level insight.

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 (Blend), a clear resource (two curves or edges), and the resulting output (transition surface). It is easy to understand, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby GSD surface tools like fill, sweep, or multi-section, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives a basic sense of what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives such as catia_gsd_fill, catia_gsd_sweep, or catia_gsd_multi_section. No exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria are given, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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