catia_remove_component

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is destructive. The description adds valuable context: 'The underlying file is untouched,' which clarifies the scope of the destruction (only the assembly reference is removed, not the file). This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent understand the real-world consequence. No contradiction with 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the key caveat ('underlying file is untouched') is included in the second sentence. 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 single-parameter destructive operation with annotations covering the destructive nature, the description is nearly complete. It explains the action, the scope (assembly), and the non-destructive effect on the file. It doesn't mention return values, but there is no output schema and the operation is a simple removal, so that is not a significant gap. It could name a sibling like catia_delete_element for contrast, but that is a minor omission.

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%: the only parameter, instance_name, is described as 'Instance name of the component to remove.' The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. The tool description's mention of 'component' aligns with the parameter, but no extra semantics are provided.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove a component from the assembly') and the resource ('component'), and it distinguishes itself from related operations by noting the underlying file is untouched. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives like catia_delete_element or catia_move_component, but the verb 'remove' and the assembly context make the purpose clear.

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 usage: use this when you want to remove a component from an assembly without deleting its file. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., catia_delete_element for deleting elements, catia_move_component for repositioning). The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the primary use case, but explicit exclusions are missing.

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