Create a surface offset from an existing one by a given distance, with options for reverse direction and naming.
Create a surface offset from an existing one by a set distance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Name for the surface. | |
| geoset | No | Target geometrical set. | |
| offset | No | Offset distance in mm. | |
| reverse | No | Offset the other way. | |
| surface | Yes | Reference token of the surface. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only, idempotent, or destructive by default; the description adds the basic behavior of creating an offset from an existing surface. It does not disclose edge cases such as direction handling, tolerances, or whether the original surface is left unchanged, but that goes beyond the typical bar given 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?
Single sentence, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is concise, though it offers no structural signposting for usage notes.
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 simple create-with-parameters tool, schema plus description are minimally sufficient to invoke it. However, there is no output schema and no statement of what the tool returns or how the new surface is registered, and usage context is absent.
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 covers all five parameters (name, geoset, offset, reverse, surface) with descriptions and defaults, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.
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 names a specific verb-resource pair ('Create a surface offset') and clearly identifies the operation. It is distinguishable from siblings by the offset concept, though it does not explicitly contrast with related surface tools like catia_gsd_thick_surface.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; no mention of when not to use it. The only implied usage is 'create offset surface', which is too thin to help an agent choose among the many GSD surface tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.