Sweep a closed profile along a guide curve to remove material and create a slot feature in your CATIA model.
Sweep a closed profile along a guide curve to remove material - CATIA's Slot feature, the subtractive counterpart of catia_rib.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Name for the resulting feature. | |
| profile | Yes | Reference token of the profile sketch. | |
| center_curve | Yes | Reference token of the guide curve. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all false (no readOnly, idempotent, or destructive hints), so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that material is removed, but does not explain side effects, prerequisites (e.g., active body, closed profile), or any limitations. This is minimal for a geometry-modifying operation.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and purpose. It contains no redundant words and efficiently conveys the tool's function.
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 tool with only two required parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose and the relationship between the profile and guide curve. It could mention the need for a closed profile (already stated) and prerequisites like an active part, but these are implied by the CATIA context. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
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%, with each parameter having a description (e.g., 'Reference token of the profile sketch'). The description adds conceptual meaning by linking the parameters to the sweep operation, but it does not provide syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high coverage.
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 ('Sweep a closed profile along a guide curve to remove material') and names the resource ('CATIA's Slot feature'). It also distinguishes from the sibling catia_rib by explicitly calling itself the 'subtractive counterpart', making its role clear.
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 provides useful context by naming catia_rib as the additive counterpart, implying that this tool should be used when material removal is needed. However, it does not mention other subtractive alternatives like pocket or groove, so the guidance is not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.