catia_gsd_line

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

Annotations are all non-informative (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Create a line' and the modes; it does not disclose that this creates a GSD feature, what happens to the geometric set, or any failure conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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?

Two sentences, core verb and resource first, then an efficient enumeration of the modes. Every phrase earns its place and there is no redundant wording.

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 tool has 9 parameters and 4 modes, but no output schema and no annotations. The description explains the modes but not which parameters are required for each mode (e.g., start and end for two_points, direction for point_direction). The schema is well-documented, so an agent can reconstruct the needed information, but the description alone is not comprehensive for this level of complexity.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by associating modes with parameter usage ('point_direction with a length', 'normal to a surface at a point'), which helps infer that length is relevant for point_direction and support is needed for normal/tangent. It does not fully map all parameters per mode, but it goes beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Create a line,' a specific verb and resource, and enumerates four distinct construction modes. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like catia_sketch_line or catia_gsd_polyline, though the GSD-specific modes (normal to a surface, tangent to a curve) imply a 3D wireframe context.

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 lists modes but does not explain when to use this tool versus a sketch line or polyline, nor which mode fits which scenario. It provides a clear picture of internal options but no guidance on selection from the sibling toolset.

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