creo_create_project_extrusion_copy

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral traits: it copies into the current working directory, refuses overwrite, and verifies the active feature and solid-volume change. There is no contradiction with the annotations, and these additions help an agent anticipate side effects and validation behavior, though error handling on verification failure is not described.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and each clause contributes useful information. It packs scope, supported modes, overwrite behavior, and verification into a compact, readable form without padding.

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?

This is a complex 12-parameter tool with no output schema, sparse annotations, and many similar sibling tools. The description conveys high-level behavior and safety constraints, but leaves parameter roles, return/error behavior, and selection guidance largely to inference. An agent would need additional context to invoke it correctly in a competitive sibling landscape.

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 only 25%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented parameters. It touches on profile ('rectangle or circle'), operation_mode ('additive protrusion and blind cut'), and depth through the extrusion concept, but it does not explain expected_model, copy_name, feature_name, sketch_plane, direction_side, or orientation_plane. This is only partial compensation for a 12-parameter schema.

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 gives a specific action and resource: copy the current Creo part into the selected live working directory and create a centered rectangle or circle extrusion. It clearly captures the tool's combined copy-and-extrude behavior and its supported modes, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from the similarly named 'safe' extrusion/cut siblings.

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 guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as creo_create_safe_rectangle_extrusion_copy or creo_create_safe_rectangle_cut_copy. The description provides context such as 'current Creo part' and 'live working directory already selected,' but no when-to-use/when-not-to-use framing.

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