catia_set_render_style

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false). The description adds value by specifying the behavior: it changes the drawing style and, critically, falls back to the interactive command when the property is not exposed. This fallback is a behavioral trait not captured in annotations, providing extra context about robustness and failure mode.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and options, followed by a concise fallback note. No wasted words, efficient and easy to parse. The structure is ideal for an agent scanning multiple tools.

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 setter with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, the options, and a fallback behavior. Annotations cover safety. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing. The fallback note addresses potential environment variability, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 parameter 'style' is fully documented with valid values. The description adds a high-level summary of those values ('shaded, shaded with edges, wireframe, or a few CATIA variants') but does not go beyond the schema. It reinforces the list but adds no new semantic detail, 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Change how the model is drawn' – a specific verb and resource. It enumerates the style options (shaded, shaded with edges, wireframe, CATIA variants), making it unambiguous what the tool does. It stands apart from sibling tools like catia_set_view or catia_fit_all because it specifically targets render style.

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 when to use it (to change visual representation) but provides no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance. It does mention a fallback to the interactive command, which is a usage nuance but not about selecting this tool over siblings. Lacks explicit routing compared to tools like catia_get_calls that name alternatives.

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