catia_user_pattern

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

Annotations provide only false hints, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully explains that positions come from sketch points and that instances repeat the chosen feature, but it does not mention whether the original feature remains, whether the pattern is associative, or what happens on invalid inputs.

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 short sentences: one defines the mechanism, the other gives the canonical use case. There is no filler or repetition of schema text, and the action is front-loaded.

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?

The description plus complete schema descriptions give enough to select the tool and understand the main parameters. However, the definition misses important operational context: feature is effectively required despite the schema's required list, and there is no guidance on valid source tokens or failure behavior. It is adequate but has clear gaps for a CAD mutation tool with no output 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 parameters. The description adds conceptual context by linking 'every point of a sketch' to positions_sketch, but it does not clarify that feature is conceptually required even though the schema lists only positions_sketch as required.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Repeat a feature at every point of a sketch' and names CATIA's User Pattern. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it is for irregular hole layouts that no rectangular or circular pattern can describe.

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?

'Use it for irregular hole layouts that no rectangular or circular pattern can describe' explicitly states when to use this tool. It names the alternative pattern families, which map to sibling tools catia_rect_pattern and catia_circ_pattern, making the selection criterion clear.

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