creo_create_project_sheetmetal_planar_wall_current

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

The description discloses additional behaviors beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it 'verifies subtype, feature status, thickness, volume and envelope, saves and displays the part, and recycles older versions of only that part family.' This explains side effects (saving, display, version recycling) that align with destructiveHint=true. It provides useful operational context without contradicting the 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 three sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by side-effect details and the variant clarification. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and behavioral side effects, and the schema provides parameter constraints. However, without output schema and with 0% parameter description coverage, the description leaves gaps: it does not explain what the verification steps entail, what happens on failure, or the meaning of expected_model and feature_name. Given the tool's complexity and destructive nature, more parameter context would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explain the meaning of length, width, thickness, feature_name, or expected_model. While 'thickness' is mentioned as part of verification, the description fails to clarify that length and width define the wall's planar dimensions or what expected_model and feature_name represent. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the action: 'Create the first unattached planar wall in the current expected empty native Creo sheet-metal project part on FRONT.' It identifies the verb (create), resource (planar wall), and context (current sheet-metal part, FRONT plane). It also differentiates from siblings by noting 'This variant operates on an existing project sheet-metal part,' which distinguishes it from the non-current variant and other wall tools like flat_wall.

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 implies when to use this tool: when an existing project sheet-metal part is present and you need the first unattached planar wall. It states 'This variant operates on an existing project sheet-metal part,' giving context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., if you need a flat wall or a new part). The guidance is inferred rather than explicitly contrasted.

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