catia_gsd_split

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds a modest behavioral detail—the result keeps one side of the cut—but does not disclose whether the original element is preserved, whether the cutting element must intersect the target, or what state changes occur in the model tree. No contradiction with 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?

A single 12-word sentence with zero filler. The verb, target, cutting element, and result are all front-loaded in natural reading order. Every word contributes meaning.

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 description is minimally adequate because the schema fully documents all five parameters and the annotations cover the state-changing safety profile. However, for a geometric operation that modifies a model, it omits operational context an agent would want: whether the original is destroyed or preserved, the requirement that the cutter intersect the target, and how the 'positive side' is determined relative to the element's orientation. It is complete enough to attempt a call but not to anticipate failures.

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 coverage is 100% with clear per-parameter descriptions ('Reference token of the element to cut', 'Reference token of the cutter', 'Keep the positive side of the cut'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description paraphrases the key parameters in plain language (element, cutting_element, keep_positive_side) but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 precise verb ('Cut'), a specific target ('a surface or curve'), the cutting mechanism ('with another element'), and the outcome ('keeping one side'). It is clear and specific enough for an agent to understand the operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the closely related sibling catia_gsd_trim, leaving some distinction to domain knowledge.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes catia_gsd_trim, catia_gsd_intersect, and catia_gsd_join, which are near-equivalent geometry operations, but the description gives no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions to help the agent choose. The agent must decide based on schema alone.

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