catia_gsd_transform

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it creates new geometry and preserves the original, which is a useful behavioral nuance beyond the annotations. No contradiction with the 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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the differentiating comparison is second. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the main differentiation. It does not explain which parameters are required for specific operations (e.g., that rotate needs a reference and value), but the schema already describes each parameter. It is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's role, though it could be more detailed about operation-specific requirements.

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 every parameter already has a description. The description does not add extra semantics about parameters; it merely lists operations in prose. The mention of 'affinity' is inconsistent with the schema's operation enum (which only has translate, rotate, symmetry, scale), which could confuse agents, but overall the schema carries the parameter 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?

Clearly states the action: 'Copy geometry with a transformation' and lists the specific operations (translate, rotate, symmetry, scale, affinity). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling catia_transform_body by noting it creates new surface geometry. This gives an agent a precise understanding of the tool's purpose.

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?

Explicitly contrasts with catia_transform_body, stating the key differentiator: 'Unlike catia_transform_body this creates new surface geometry and leaves the original in place.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool over the sibling.

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