Repair small gaps between surfaces to allow joining or closing them into a solid.
Heal small gaps between surfaces so they can be joined or closed into a solid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Name for the result. | |
| geoset | No | Target geometrical set. | |
| elements | Yes | Reference tokens to heal. | |
| merging_distance | No | Largest gap to close, mm. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all negative hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It does not state whether the original surfaces are modified or a new healed geometry is created, nor does it describe behavior when gaps exceed merging_distance beyond a basic purpose.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the target resource, and the purpose efficiently.
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?
There is no output schema and the description is too sparse for a complex GSD healing operation. It omits return/result behavior, side effects on input surfaces, and clear differentiation from closely related sibling tools, so an agent lacks enough context to invoke it with confidence.
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 parameter meanings are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds little parameter-specific value, but the full schema coverage keeps this at the baseline.
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 uses a specific verb ('heal') and a specific resource ('small gaps between surfaces'), and explains the intended outcome ('so they can be joined or closed into a solid'). This clearly differentiates healing from sibling operations such as catia_gsd_join or catia_gsd_fill.
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 'so they can be joined or closed into a solid' implies a preparatory use case, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose healing over related operations like catia_gsd_join or catia_gsd_close_surface. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.