catia_stiffener

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by detailing the geometric behavior: thickening normal to the sketch plane and extending until meeting the solid. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the operation's nature, though it does not mention potential errors or side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It immediately states the purpose and key geometric details without any fluff.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action, prerequisites (open sketch), and behavior (thickness normal to plane, extension to solid). It omits details like active body targeting or symmetric thickness options, but these are not critical for correct invocation and are typical of such tools.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions), so the description adds little beyond what the schema provides. The description mentions the thickness direction but does not elaborate on parameter meanings or constraints beyond the schema's own documentation. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Create a stiffener'), the resource (rib/gusset), and the specific geometric approach ('from an open sketch profile, thickened normal to the sketch plane and extended until it meets the existing solid'). It distinguishes this from similar tools like catia_rib by specifying the open-profile and extension-to-solid behavior.

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 context (requires an open sketch and an existing solid to extend to) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to choose this over similar tools like rib or pad. There is no exclusionary language or comparison to siblings.

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