catia_sketch_point

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (a write operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description aligns by saying 'Add', but adds no further behavioral detail such as whether the point becomes a separate feature, potential errors, or return value. Since annotations cover the basic safety profile, the description adds only the use-case context.

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 action and scope are front-loaded, and the use-case note is concise. 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?

For a simple point-creation tool, the description covers the essentials. It implies the need for an open sketch (via 'current sketch') and the schema provides defaults. It does not mention return values, but no output schema exists, so this is acceptable. It could have explicitly stated the sketch prerequisite, but the schema's default parameter mitigates this.

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 coverage is 100% – x, y, and sketch are all described. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning; it only notes that points are useful for hole centres and anchors, which is general context. It does not compensate for any schema gaps because there are none.

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 verb ('Add'), the resource ('a 2D point'), and the scope ('to the current sketch'), which distinguishes it from sibling sketch tools like line, circle, or spline. It is specific and 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 when a point is needed (e.g., hole centres, constraint anchors) and mentions 'current sketch', suggesting an open sketch is required, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state prerequisites like 'ensure a sketch is open before calling'. It offers context but no exclusions.

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