catia_sketch_rectangle

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, implying a mutating operation that is not idempotent. The description adds behavioral value by confirming the profile is 'genuinely closed' and can be padded/pocketed immediately, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects like constraints added, or if the tool modifies the sketch in any other way.

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 sentences, tight and no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded with the closed-profile benefit stated immediately. Every word adds value, though a third sentence could clarify the 'sketch' parameter, but that's minor.

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?

Given the tool's complexity is moderate (5 params, 1 optional), the description covers the main purpose and the key benefit (closed profile). However, it doesn't explain how the optional 'sketch' parameter is used, nor whether the tool auto-selects a sketch if not provided. It also doesn't mention return value, but there is no output schema, so that's acceptable. The description is adequate but not exhaustive for an agent to fully understand preconditions.

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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does reinforces that the tool uses opposite corners, which is consistent with the schema. The 'sketch' parameter is optional and not explained in the description, but the schema covers its purpose minimally.

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 tool creates a closed rectangle from two opposite corners, which is specific and distinct from siblings like catia_sketch_centered_rectangle and catia_sketch_polygon. It also mentions the four lines share explicit corner points, reinforcing the closed profile aspect. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough to distinguish it.

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 a sketching context and emphasizes the closed profile is ready for padding or pocketing, which suggests when to use this over other sketch tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with centered rectangle, polygon, or other geometry tools. The closed-profile benefit is a clear usage hint but not exhaustive.

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