catia_tritangent_fillet

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to modify geometry. The description adds valuable context by explicitly stating that the removed face 'disappears into the round', clarifying the effect of the face_to_remove parameter. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 primary action is front-loaded, and the clarifying note about the removed face is concise. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 specialized fillet operation, the description explains the core concept and the role of the removed face. With no output schema and all parameters documented, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., valid face configuration) but that is beyond typical scope.

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 baseline is 3. The description provides a hint about the face_to_remove parameter ('the one that disappears into the round'), which adds a small semantic clarification beyond the schema's 'Face token to be removed.' However, it does not elaborate on first_face and second_face, so the added value is marginal.

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 a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('a face'), and specifies the operation as a tritangent fillet tangent to three faces. It also clarifies the role of the removed face, distinguishing it from sibling fillet tools like catia_fillet and catia_face_fillet. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 (when a tritangent fillet is needed) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as catia_face_fillet or catia_variable_fillet. It provides no exclusions or comparison, so an agent must infer the appropriate choice from the name and description alone.

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