catia_set_active_body

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

It reveals the key stateful behavior: it changes CATIA's in-work object and redirects all subsequent feature creation, which is useful context beyond the idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations. It doesn't cover error cases or persistence across sessions, but those are secondary for a setter.

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 and the consequence are front-loaded. 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 one-parameter state setter with full schema coverage and supporting annotations, the description covers the purpose and the lasting effect. It would be slightly stronger if it pointed to catia_gsd_set_active_geoset for the alternative case, so it isn't a perfect 5.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and an example in the parameter description, the schema already documents the name parameter. The tool description adds no additional semantics about the parameter, so baseline 3 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 names a specific verb ('Choose/set'), the resource (body or geometrical set), and the observable effect (new features afterwards land in it). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling catia_gsd_set_active_geoset, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of catia_gsd_set_active_geoset or before creating features. The description only states the effect, leaving the agent to infer when it should be called.

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