Remove a single 2D element (such as a line or curve) from a CATIA sketch to clean up geometry.
Delete one 2D element from a sketch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sketch | No | Target sketch. | |
| element | Yes | Element name, e.g. 'Line.3'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds no new behavioral context. It does not mention that deleting an element may affect constraints, dependent geometry, or downstream features, nor does it explain whether the action is undoable or if the sketch must be active.
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, direct sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and 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?
Although the tool is simple)Skip parameter count and schema coverage are high, the description is too thin for a destructive operation. It does not explain what happens when the optional 'sketch' parameter is omitted, how sketch context is resolved, or how this relates to deleting elements via catia_delete_element. Given the destructive nature, more context is needed.
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 is 3. The description adds a small amount of context by describing the element as '2D', and the schema already provides an example ('Line.3') and the 'Target sketch' description, so no major parameter guidance is missing.
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 ('Delete'), a clear resource ('one 2D element from a sketch'), and implicitly distinguishes this from the more generic sibling catia_delete_element by scoping to 2D sketch geometry. It is unambiguous about what operation is performed.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as catia_delete_element, nor any explanation of prerequisites like needing an active sketch or selecting a sketch first. The phrase 'from a sketch' implies context, but the agent is not told when this tool is preferred or not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.