catia_new_product

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only, and the description adds the concrete side effect of making the new document active. It does not detail the effect on the previously active document or any return value, but the main behavioral trait 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the action, resource, and result with no filler or redundancy.

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 low-complexity creation tool with one optional parameter, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it. It could mention what happens to the previously active document or expected return, but these are minor gaps given the simple operation.

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%: part_number is documented as the part number for the root product. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the complete schema.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new empty CATProduct (assembly) document') and adds a behavioral outcome ('make it active'). This clearly separates it from siblings like catia_new_part and catia_add_new_product, which target different document/product operations.

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 implies the tool is for creating a new assembly document, but it never states when to prefer it over catia_add_new_product or catia_new_part, nor does it list exclusions. An agent can infer usage, but the guidance is not explicit.

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