catia_gsd_spline

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

With no positive annotations (all hints false), the description carries the burden. It discloses the primary behavior (creates a spline) and input must be existing reference tokens, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention side effects on the active geoset, failure modes for invalid tokens, or whether the operation is undoable.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It names the operation, the resource, and the essential input constraint without listing optional parameters.

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 4-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal but adequate: the schema covers parameter semantics. Gaps include no mention of return value, active geoset behavior, or what happens if points are invalid.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description's phrase 'existing points, given as reference tokens' essentially repeats the schema's points description, adding no new parameter-level meaning.

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?

Description states a specific action (create) on a specific resource (3D spline) with a clear input type (list of existing points as reference tokens). It distinguishes from sibling catia_sketch_spline by explicitly saying 3D, and from other GSD curve tools by naming spline.

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 implies usage (when you need a 3D spline through existing points) but provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives like catia_sketch_spline or catia_gsd_polyline, and no mention of prerequisites beyond points being existing.

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