catia_sketch_constraint

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description's statement of adding a constraint is consistent. The description adds the context of 'current sketch' and the distinction between dimensional and geometric constraints, but it does not disclose potential side effects, failure modes, or reversibility beyond what the annotations imply. It provides minimal additional behavioral transparency.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second provides critical details about parameter usage and element referencing. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the key aspects of using the tool: how to specify constraint kinds, when a value is needed, and how to reference element points. It implicitly assumes an active sketch. The 'sketch' parameter and 'reference_only' are documented in the schema, so they don't need repeating. However, it does not explicitly mention prerequisites like having geometry created first or that the tool will fail if constraints conflict, but these are minor gaps given the schema coverage.

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?

The schema already documents all parameters with descriptions, including the 'kind' enum and examples for 'elements'. The description adds value by explicitly explaining which kinds require a 'value' and how to reference points via '.start', '.end', or '.center' suffixes. This goes beyond the schema's generic examples and helps an agent construct correct arguments.

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 ('Add a constraint') and the resource ('to the current sketch'). It differentiates between dimensional and geometric kinds, which is a specific behavior that distinguishes it from other constraint tools like assembly constraints. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 in the context of sketch geometry and mentions that element names come from catia_sketch_geometry, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like catia_assembly_constraint or when not to use it. It lacks explicit exclusions or conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the primary use case.

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