creo_create_project_skeleton_surface_inset_extrusion

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, explicitly disclosing the destructive version-recycling step, the save/display side effects, the validation behavior, and the verification of volume and +Z envelope increases. This directly complements destructiveHint=true and adds meaningful operational context beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 with no filler, and the primary purpose appears early. It packs six actions into one clause chain, which is somewhat harder to scan than a bulleted list, but every listed behavior earns its place.

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 operation with 8 parameters, no output schema, and sparse schema descriptions, the description covers the main workflow but leaves gaps around direction_side, orientation_plane, prerequisites, failure conditions, and the return value. It is adequate but not fully self-sufficient for an agent deciding how to invoke it correctly.

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?

With only 13% schema description coverage, the description compensates for several parameters: surface_id as the face to validate, inset as the equal four-side offset, and expected_assembly/expected_skeleton as the models saved afterward. However, direction_side and orientation_plane receive no semantic explanation, and feature_name's behavior is only partially covered by the schema's Unicode note.

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 states a specific multi-step operation: validate a top-face surface by ID and area, create a centered additive rectangular extrusion with equal inset from the XY outline, verify volume and +Z envelope increases, save/display the models, and recycle old versions. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling creo_create_project_skeleton_surface_outset_extrusion through the explicit 'inset' behavior.

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 phrase 'In the expected standard skeleton' provides clear context for when the tool applies, and the centered-inset geometry makes the intended scenario specific. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the inset-vs-outset sibling relationship provides enough differentiation.

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