catia_new_body

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the new body becomes the in-work object, and subsequent features go into it. This is a side effect beyond what annotations convey. It doesn't mention whether an existing body with the same name is replaced or errors, but the core behavioral trait (making it in-work) is disclosed.

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, zero waste. The first sentence states the action and its primary side effect; the second gives the strategic purpose. Information is front-loaded and 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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the action, the side effect, and the use case. It doesn't mention error conditions (e.g., duplicate name) or whether the body is created in the active part, but given the simplicity and the schema coverage, this is adequate. A 4 is appropriate because it fully equips an agent to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (name and set_in_work). The description adds context for set_in_work ('make it the in-work object') but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's 'Make the new body the target for new features.' The name parameter is self-explanatory. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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 ('Add'), a specific resource ('a new empty body to the part'), and the key behavioral effect ('make it the in-work object, so subsequent features go into it'). It also explains the purpose ('build shapes to combine with boolean operations'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like catia_set_active_body and catia_list_bodies.

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 description clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need a new body to hold subsequent features, especially before boolean operations. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context 'This is how you build shapes to combine with boolean operations' provides clear usage context. It doesn't say when not to use it (e.g., when you just want to switch active body, use catia_set_active_body).

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