catia_update

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

Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations by explaining that the tool forces recomputation and can surface the feature that is in error, helping the agent understand what invoking this tool will do.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words: the first states the core action and scope, the second gives concrete use cases. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 parameterless tool with safety-oriented annotations, the description covers purpose, when to call it, and expected behavioral outcome. It does not explicitly clarify the relationship with catia_update_assembly or define the exact return format, but the operation is simple enough that these are minor gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to document. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this dimension is well handled.

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 ('Force CATIA to recompute') and a clear resource ('the active part or assembly'). It clearly conveys the tool's function, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling catia_update_assembly, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Call this after a batch of edits, or to surface which feature is in error.' This tells an agent when to use the tool, but it does not mention when not to use it or compare it against alternatives like catia_update_assembly.

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