catia_gsd_trim

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false arabers. The description adds the key behavior that one side of each element is kept, but it does not state whether this creates a new feature, modifies the originals, or what happens to the discarded sides beyond not being kept. This is modest value beyond 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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the operation and outcome. Every phrase earns its place: 'Trim' gives the action, 'two surfaces or curves' gives the object, and 'keeping one side of each' gives the result.

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 operation with two required parameters and a complete schema, the description is adequate. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that the elements must intersect) or define the meaning of 'positive side' for the boolean parametersفق and there is no output schema to clarify return behavior.

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 six parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics; it only rephrases the side-keeping concept already present in the boolean parameter descriptions.

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 specific verb ('Trim'), a specific resource ('two surfaces or curves'), and the outcome ('keeping one side of each'). It clearly identifies the operation, though it does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling catia_gsd_split, relying on 'against each other' to convey the mutual trimming nature.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like catia_gsd_split or catia_gsd_intersect. The context is only implied by the verb 'trim' and the phrase 'against each other'; no criteria or exclusions are provided.

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