catia_solid_combine

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful behavior: the solid is produced by extruding both profiles normal to their planes, and the profiles must intersect. However, it does not mention failure conditions, whether the sketches are kept, or where the resulting feature appears.

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 short, efficient sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary operation and inputs; the second gives a practical use case. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 feature-creation tool with complete parameter schema and annotations, the description gives a solid mental model: provide two intersecting sketch profiles and optionally a name, and a solid is created. A note about prerequisites, such as the sketches needing to exist in the active body, would improve completeness, but nothing essential is missing.

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 all three parameters already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema. It only re-emphasizes the concept of intersecting profiles, which is minimally additive.

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 operation ('Create a solid'), the required inputs ('two intersecting sketch profiles'), the mechanism ('extruded normal to their planes'), and the feature name ('CATIA's Combine feature'). This allows an agent to distinguish it from other solid-creation tools like pad or shaft.

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 explicit context for when the tool is appropriate: 'Useful for shapes that are hard to express as one profile.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions, but the use case is clear enough for selection.

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