creo_create_project_empty_assembly

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the bar is lower, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it verifies name/type, regenerates, saves, displays, and recycles older versions of 'only that assembly family.' This tells an agent what gets modified/cleaned and scopes the destructive effect precisely. No contradiction with annotations.

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 one long sentence but front-loads the core action and packs all behavior into a compact stream. It is somewhat dense, but every clause adds pertinent operational detail; no filler or redundancy.

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 CAD operation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites ('already selected' working directory), units, template source, actions, display, and version cleanup. It does not describe return values or failure modes, but the behavioral detail is enough for an agent to invoke and verify the operation in most cases.

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, but it only mentions 'assembly name' as part of the process and does not explain that assembly_name is the new model's name, its character restrictions, or its interplay with the verify/save steps. The schema's pattern and maxLength carry most of the parameter meaning.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Create a new empty millimeter Creo assembly', and clarifies 'No component is added.' This clearly differentiates it from the sibling creo_create_project_assembly, which presumably covers non-empty assemblies, so an agent can identify this tool's scope without opening schemas.

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 useful context: it operates in the currently selected working directory, uses the installed template, and is deliberately empty. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over creo_create_project_assembly or another sibling; 'No component is added' is an implied selection criterion, not a stated when/when-not rule.

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