Create a new empty CATPart document and activate it to start solid or surface modeling in CATIA V5.
Create a new empty CATPart document and make it active. This is the starting point for any solid or surface modelling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Name for the part inside the tree (not the file name). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool creates a new empty document and changes the active document. It is consistent with idempotentHint=false by implying each invocation creates a new part. It does not discuss side effects like file saving, but annotations already establish that the operation is not read-only or destructive.
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 short sentences: the first states the action and result, the second explains its role. There is no redundant or filler content, and the main behavior is front-loaded.
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 creation tool with one documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, the active-document side effect, and its typical use. It could mention the distinction from adding a part to an assembly, but that gap is minor given the clarity of 'new empty CATPart document'.
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 provides 100% coverage for the single 'name' parameter, including that it is the part name inside the tree, not the file name. The description adds no additional parameter detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clear verb ('Create') and resource ('new empty CATPart document'), and it is further clarified by 'make it active' and 'starting point for any solid or surface modelling'. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling catia_add_new_part, so it stops short of a perfect score.
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 'starting point for any solid or surface modelling' gives a clear context for when to use this tool. It does not state exclusions or mention alternatives such as catia_add_new_part, but the intended use is evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.