catia_sketch_line

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add non-obvious behavior: construction lines do not take part in the profile, and axis=true has downstream meaning for shaft/groove creation. However, it does not disclose invocation prerequisites, error behavior, or what happens if no sketch is active, so coverage is only partial.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, and the second efficiently covers the two optional modes plus their downstream consequences.

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 line tool with four required coordinates and two booleans, the core behavior is covered well. But with no output schema and no annotations carrying safety details, the description should at least mention the active-sketch prerequisite and what the call returns or confirms; both are absent.

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 seven parameters, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that construction lines 'do not take part in the profile' and that axis=true is what catia_shaft and catia_groove use as the revolution axis. This gives an agent useful decision support for setting the boolean parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('a straight line between two points in the current sketch'), and the 'current sketch' qualifier clearly separates it from GSD surface tools like catia_gsd_line. It also flags the two special line modes, so an agent can understand what this tool contributes at a glance.

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 gives useful contextual hints such as 'current sketch', construction vs profile participation, and axis relevance to catia_shaft and catia_groove. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over sibling sketch tools like catia_sketch_polyline or catia_sketch_geometry, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites like 'requires an open sketch'.

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