creo_create_project_sheetmetal_part

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only, and the description adds concrete side effects: it recycles older versions of only that part family, keeps the working directory active, saves/displays the part, and verifies the returned subtype. This goes beyond the annotation basics, though it does not explain failure modes if the model name already exists.

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 every clause adds a distinct behavioral guarantee such as template source, directory state, save/display, and version cleanup. It lacks bullet structure but is front-loaded with the primary create action and contains no filler.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisite, units, template, save/display, subtype verification, and version cleanup. It implies a returned model via 'verify the returned sheet-metal model subtype,' though it does not explicitly state the return value or error behavior if the template or part name conflicts.

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 coverage is 100%: model_name has a clear description ('without .prt') plus a pattern and maxLength. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: 'Create a new empty native millimeter Creo sheet-metal part' and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like creo_create_project_part and the sheet-metal wall creation tools by emphasizing an empty template-based part. It also names the key lifecycle steps (save, display, version cleanup), so an agent cannot mistake it for a feature-adding tool.

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?

It provides clear context by requiring the live working directory already selected in the current session, which implies the prerequisite of setting a working directory first. However, it never names alternatives like creo_create_project_part or explains when to prefer this tool over them; the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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