catia_sketch_ellipse

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, so the description needs only modest behavioral context. It adds that the operation targets the current sketch and can create either a full ellipse or an elliptical arc, but it does not clarify how the sketch parameter overrides the current-sketch behavior or what happens if no sketch is 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 focused sentence that leads with the primary action and object. There is no filler, and it is appropriately front-loaded; it says exactly what the tool does without redundantly restating the tool name.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but viable: it communicates the core purpose and target context, with parameter semantics fully delegated to the schema. It lacks richer context like coordinate system, relationship to start/end angles, or failure behavior when no sketch is active, which leaves clear gaps but does not make the tool unusable.

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 all 8 parameters are already explained with units and defaults in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level information, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 for fully covered schemas.

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 ('Add'), a concrete resource ('ellipse or elliptical arc'), and a clear target ('current sketch'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like catia_sketch_circle or catia_sketch_arc, making selection 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as catia_sketch_arc, catia_sketch_circle, or catia_sketch_spline. It mentions 'current sketch' but does not state prerequisites like requiring an active sketch or how to select a different sketch.

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