Add a closed rectangle centered on a specified point in a CATIA sketch by entering its width and height.
Add a closed rectangle centred on a point, given its width and height.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width | Yes | Total width along H, mm. | |
| height | Yes | Total height along V, mm. | |
| sketch | No | Target sketch. | |
| center_x | Yes | Centre H coordinate, mm. | |
| center_y | Yes | Centre V coordinate, mm. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate that this is not read-only, and the description confirms it adds geometry rather than merely modifying state. It adds the closed-shape and center-anchored behavior, but says nothing about sketch targeting, coordinate frame H/V, or side effects if a sketch is not specified.
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?
One compact sentence front-loads the action and shape, then the defining inputs. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.
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 geometry-creation tool with fully documented parameters, the description is mostly adequate. The notable omission is the behavior of the optional sketch parameter (what happens if omitted), and with no output schema the agent is not told what the call returns.
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%, so the baseline applies. The description adds the relationship between the center point and width/height, but the schema already documents units (mm), H/V orientation, and the optional target sketch.
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 concrete action ('Add') and a specific resource ('a closed rectangle centred on a point') with the defining width and height. This conveys the shape and center anchoring, though it does not explicitly call out sibling catia_sketch_rectangle as the non-centered alternative.
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 phrase 'centred on a point, given its width and height' implies the use case: a centered rectangle defined by center coordinates and dimensions. However, it gives no explicit when/when-not guidance, no prerequisites such as an active sketch, and no mention of when catia_sketch_rectangle would be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.