catia_transform_body

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining that these are history features that move the body from that point in the tree onwards. This tells the agent the operation is model-tree-affecting and order-sensitive, which is valuable given the annotations provide no read-only or idempotency guarantees.

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 filler. The first sentence front-loads the action, target, and operation variants; the second sentence adds the key history-feature behavior. Every clause contributes useful 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?

Given the tool's complexity—four operations with different reference types—the description covers the full scope and the schema covers all parameters. The main gaps are no mention of return values and no explicit prerequisite about how the current body is selected, but these are secondary for a mutation-style tool with a well-covered schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters meaningfully. The description lists the operation types and the history-feature behavior, but it does not add parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 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 states a specific verb ('apply') and resource ('current body'), and enumerates the four distinct transformation types: translate, rotate, mirror, and scale. This clearly differentiates it from surface-level sibling tools like catia_gsd_transform by anchoring it to the body and history-based feature context.

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 makes clear that the tool operates on the current body and creates history features, giving an agent enough context to select it over GSD surface transforms or direct geometry manipulation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list exclusion conditions, but the operational context is unambiguous.

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