catia_gsd_sweep

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only and not idempotent; the description adds that it creates a surface. It does not disclose where the surface is placed, whether repeated calls produce separate surfaces, or what happens on invalid references, but the annotations lower the burden and there is no contradiction.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and result are immediately visible. It is concise, though it does not use the available space to add routing or behavioral cues.

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 schema fully documents the parameters and annotations cover the basic safety profile, so the one-line purpose is enough for a basic invocation. However, with no output schema and no mention of active-geoset behavior or returned reference, the description leaves some operational context to convention or trial-and-error.

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 each parameter already has a named meaning. The description only reinforces that profile and guide are the swept inputs and that the result is a surface; it adds no detail about token formats, valid geometry types, or default behavior for the name and geoset parameters.

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 operation—sweeping a profile along a guide curve—and the produced resource (a surface), so an agent can tell it from extrude or revolve. It does not explicitly contrast it with catia_rib or catia_gsd_multi_section, which also involve profiles and curves, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 given about when to choose this tool over sibling surface or solid creation tools, nor about prerequisites such as active document, closed vs open profile, or guide-curve continuity. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the one-line description.

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