It's a nice analogy but there are a few things to consider. Usually when one makes a modelling tool choice it's something you learn to live with because changing tools is difficult and people begin to invest their time, i.e. it's not simply the case of buying a new set of tools as there are people to consider (for example, the manager who stuck their head out to get the money approved).
While you might consider the modelling tool to be a set of knives there is also the bigger picture about the kitchen. For example, IBM doesn't sell knives, it sells kitchens hence a lot of people using a tool like Rhapsody are in big companies where the kitchen is in play, including wider issues such as interfacing with change management and requirements management tools.
Chances are though that you won't find out the real differences until later. That's not to say that one tool is better than another. For example, when I was product manager for Artisan Studio one of the great things was how easy it was to collaborate on the same model as it had a Object-based database with very fine granular locking. This of course has benefits and disadvantages (e.g. what happens over a wide-area network?). Rhapsody has some really sharp aspects. Simulation is one. Configure-ability is another, or working with SCM.
The thing is whichever tool you choose, you're provably stuck with it for a while. I'd recommend therefore that you learn it very well (or get someone that does). Play to your tools strengths but don't be surprised if at some point you see others shooting down the river on different boats, at different times, or occasionally you find you need to portage a waterfall in a few years.