catia_start_command

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the GUI-equivalence behavior and the language-matching requirement, but it does not disclose what happens for an unknown command name or whether state changes can be observed or reverted. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Three purposeful sentences with no filler. The action, examples, use case, and critical language caveat are all front-loaded and each sentence contributes new information.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the action, the invocation style, the use case, and the localization constraint. It is slightly thin on error/edge behavior, but not to a degree that would confuse an agent about how to invoke it.

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 the single 'command' parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by giving two additional examples ('Redo', 'Isometric View') and, more importantly, the language-matching constraint. It does not enumerate valid command names, but no enum exists in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Trigger a CATIA interactive command by its name', and clarifies the mode with 'the way a menu item would'. It provides concrete examples ('Undo', 'Redo', 'Fit All In', 'Isometric View') and positions the tool as covering behaviors not exposed elsewhere in the automation API, which separates it from dedicated sibling tools.

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 states a clear use case: 'Useful for the handful of behaviours CATIA exposes nowhere else in the automation API,' which implies using a dedicated catia_* tool when one exists. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the intended context is reasonably clear.

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