catia_hide_element

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is well established. The description adds useful scope context ('in the 3D view') and reinforces that the element is retained, which complements the annotations without contradicting them. It does not explain persistence or reversibility in depth, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and key exclusion with no filler. Every word earns its place and the message is immediately understood.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schemaasi and annotations covering destructiveness and idempotence, the description provides all necessary behavior: it hides an element in the 3D view while keeping it. An agent equipped with a token from list-style operations can invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema already describes the only parameter token as 'Reference token of the element to hide', giving 100% coverage. The tool description itself adds no further detail about token format or acquisition, so the baseline score applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Hide') and resource ('element in the 3D view'), and adds the key qualifier 'without deleting it'. This clearly distinguishes it from catia_delete_element and pairs naturally with the sibling catia_show_element, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 phrase 'without deleting it' explicitly contrasts with deletion, which is the most relevant alternative. However, it does not explicitly mention catia_show_element as the inverse or state conditions for when to hide versus remove. The intended usage is still clear from the sibling context and the non-destructive wording.

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