Create a bond wire between two points in CST Studio Suite by setting height and radius. Use it to model wire interconnects for 3D electromagnetic simulations.
Create a bond wire between two points.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| height | Yes | ||
| point1 | Yes | ||
| point2 | Yes | ||
| radius | Yes | ||
| material | No | ||
| wire_type | No | Spline |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Create' implies a model mutation, but the description does not disclose side effects, required project state, undo behavior, default material or wire-type behavior, or coordinate/unit expectations.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is highly concise, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than rich efficiency.
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 complex mutation tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough. Although an output schema exists and reduces the need to explain return values, the description omits nearly all parameter and behavioral context needed to invoke the tool correctly.
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 0% across 8 parameters. The description only implies that point1 and point2 are endpoints; it does not explain name, height, radius, material, wire_type, coordinate format, or units, leaving most parameters undocumented.
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 names a specific verb (Create) and resource (bond wire) and clarifies the core geometry as between two points. It distinguishes this tool from generic CST creation siblings like cst_create_brick_tool by resource, though it does not explain bond-wire-specific semantics.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisite setup, or routing to alternatives. The implied usage is creating a bond-wire geometry in an existing CST project, but the description leaves all context to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.