creo_create_project_skeleton_box

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds meaningful detail: it verifies feature status/volume/dimensions, saves and displays the skeleton, saves the assembly, and recycles older versions of model families. This goes beyond the binary annotation flags and explicitly discloses a destructive version-cleanup step, consistent with destructiveHint.

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 44-word run-on sentence that front-loads the primary action but chains five distinct behaviors with commas. It is free of filler, but the structure could be improved by separating the creation step from verification, save, display, and version-recycling actions.

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 9-parameter operation with no output schema, the description covers the main workflow—create, verify, save, display, save assembly, recycle versions—but omits prerequisites (e.g., whether expected_assembly/expected_skeleton must already exist), the meaning of direction_side, error/failure behavior when verification fails, and any return value. DestructiveHint and the version-recycle note alert about side effects, but the overall context is not fully self-sufficient.

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 low (~11%, only feature_name documented), so the description must compensate. It refers to 'the requested three envelope dimensions' (length, width, height), 'expected standard skeleton' (expected_skeleton), 'save its assembly' (expected_assembly), and 'a named datum plane' (sketch_plane/orientation_plane). However, direction_side is never explained, and the distinction between sketch_plane and orientation_plane remains ambiguous, so compensation is partial.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Create one solid rectangular extrusion inside the expected standard skeleton on a named datum plane.' This clearly distinguishes it from generic or copy-based sibling tools by tying it to the standard skeleton workflow. The extra verification, save, and version-recycling clauses describe a multi-step script but do not obscure the core purpose.

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 no explicit 'when to use' or 'use instead of' guidance, and it never contrasts with similarly named siblings like creo_create_safe_rectangle_extrusion_copy or creo_resize_project_skeleton_box. The phrase 'expected standard skeleton' implies a particular context, but an agent is left to infer when this tool is preferred over alternatives.

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