creo_constrain_active_rectangle_symmetric_to_axes

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

Beyond destructiveHint=true, the description discloses specific side effects: creation of construction centerlines when missing, addition of symmetry constraints, API verification, and explicitly no accepting, exiting, regenerating, or saving of the sketch. This gives an agent a precise model of what will change in the active modeling session.

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 dense sentence, but it is front-loaded with the key precondition and then lists the operation steps in logical order. It contains no filler; splitting it into shorter sentences would improve readability without adding information.

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 mutating Creo operation with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description covers the essential precondition, the exact operations performed, verification, and the side-effect boundary of not accepting/exiting/regenerating/saving. It still leaves minor gaps around failure handling and precise parameter semantics, but it is substantially complete for tool selection and invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning by indicating that expected_model refers to the expected part/skeleton and that expected_length and expected_width act as guarded dimensions for identifying rectangle lines. However, it does not explain units, formatting, or how these values map to the sketch's existing dimensions, leaving important ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: constraining an active rectangular sketch symmetrically to sketch axes. It enumerates concrete sub-actions (identifying lines, creating centerlines, adding symmetry constraints, verifying via readback) that clearly separate it from sibling tools like the dimensioning-focused creo_dimension_active_rectangle_four_side_insets.

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 opening condition, 'While the expected Creo part or skeleton is actively editing a rectangular sketch,' clearly states the required context for use. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or describe when not to use this tool, such as when the sketch is not active or the rectangle does not meet the expected dimensions.

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