catia_thickness

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that material is added or removed, and that a negative value thins the wall. It also notes the scope ('specific faces') and contrasts with shelling. This is more transparent than typical, though it does not mention potential failures or side effects on existing features, which would push it higher.

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 with no redundancy. The core operation is front-loaded, and the negative-value clarification is essential and placed second. Every word contributes to clarity, and it avoids unnecessary filler.

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 simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the primary behavior and the meaning of the thickness parameter. It also hints at the distinction from shelling. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an active solid body) or how to obtain face references, but these are either implied by the schema or not critical for an agent to invoke correctly. Overall, it is complete enough for a straightforward CAD operation.

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 description covers all three parameters (100% coverage), including the negative value behavior for thickness. The description repeats the negative-value note but adds no new semantic detail for the 'faces' or 'name' parameters. Since the schema already documents parameters fully, the description adds minimal extra value, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Add or remove material') and a clear resource ('specific faces') with a defined thickness. It explicitly distinguishes itself from shelling the whole solid, which separates it from the sibling tool catia_shell. This makes its purpose immediately 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 implies a usage context: adding or removing material on specific faces, and contrasts it with 'without shelling the whole solid', which hints at when to prefer this over shell. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like catia_shell or catia_remove_face, nor does it state when NOT to use this tool. The guidance is present but implicit, leaving the agent to infer the exact decision boundary.

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