Create a polyline by connecting existing points using their reference tokens, with options to close the shape and assign a name or geometrical set.
Create a polyline through a list of existing points, given as reference tokens.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Name for the polyline. | |
| closed | No | Close the polyline. | |
| geoset | No | Target geometrical set. | |
| points | Yes | Reference tokens of the points. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive, which the description aligns with by saying 'Create.' The description adds the detail about reference tokens, clarifying the input mechanism, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as side effects or failure conditions. This is a moderate improvement over annotations alone.
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 wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and input requirement without redundancy.
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 creation tool, it covers the essential action and input, but it lacks any mention of required context such as an active document or geoset, and doesn't differentiate from similar curve-creation tools. While the schema covers parameters, the description leaves some ambiguity about operational context.
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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description reiterates the 'reference tokens' concept for the points parameter but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high coverage.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Create a polyline through a list of existing points, given as reference tokens.' It specifies the input type (existing points via reference tokens), which helps distinguish it from sketch-based polyline tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other GSD curve tools like spline or line.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as catia_gsd_spline or catia_sketch_polyline. The description only states the action without any context about selection criteria or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.