Select a design table row to drive the model and recompute the part in CATIA.
Select which row of a design table drives the model, then recompute.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Design table relation name. | |
| configuration | Yes | 1-based row number to apply. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so it is known to be a mutating operation. The description adds the recompute side effect, which is useful. However, it does not disclose error conditions (e.g., invalid row number) or whether the change is reversible. It adds some context beyond annotations but not richly.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and includes the recompute consequence, earning its place entirely.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and its direct effect (recompute). It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites like an active document or the need to verify the row exists, but these are relatively minor for an experienced user. Overall, it is fairly complete for the tool's simplicity.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptive text ('Design table relation name' and '1-based row number to apply'). The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides; it merely paraphrases the configuration parameter as 'which row drives the model.'
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 ('Select') and resource ('row of a design table drives the model') and includes the side effect of recomputing. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like catia_list_design_tables (list) and catia_add_design_table (add), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites like having an active document or using catia_list_design_tables first to choose a valid row. The only implicit context is that a design table must exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.