creo_create_project_skeleton_surface_outset_extrusion

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description must add context beyond that. It discloses validation of surface extents, verification of volume and +Z envelope, saving, displaying, and recycling older versions—all beyond the annotation. It does not explain failure behavior or what 'recycle older versions' entails, but overall it adds substantial behavioral context.

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 50-word sentence that front-loads validation and verification before the core action of extrusion creation. It is overstuffed with multiple steps, making it hard to parse. The core purpose is buried mid-sentence, and the structure is not efficient or front-loaded.

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 multi-step operation with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks key context: it does not explain the expected standard skeleton, what 'recycle older versions' means, error handling for validation failure, or return values. Given the complexity, this description is incomplete and would leave an agent guessing about prerequisites and outcomes.

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 only 10% (only feature_name has a description). The description loosely implies roles of surface_id, expected_surface_length/width, outset, and depth via the geometry narrative, but it does not explain the exact meaning of expected_assembly, expected_skeleton, orientation_plane, or direction_side. With such low schema coverage, the description should compensate more; it only partially does.

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 action: creating a centered additive rectangular extrusion with outward-equal sides on a validated top-face surface, along with validation, verification, save, display, and version recycling. It is clear verb+resource and implicitly distinguishes from the inset sibling by the word 'outward'. It does not explicitly name the sibling, so not a 5.

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 context ('In the expected standard skeleton') but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. It does not mention that the inset extrusion sibling exists or under what conditions to choose one over the other. Guidance is implied but not stated.

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