creo_create_project_standard_skeleton

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

Although annotations include destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: verification via ProMdlIsSkeleton and assembly readback, saving both models, and recycling older versions of only those two model families. This clearly conveys the scope and side effects of the operation.

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 that front-loads the primary creation action followed by the verification, save, and cleanup behaviors. Every clause adds useful information and there is no redundant or filler content, though the sentence is somewhat long.

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 destructive creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main workflow: creation, verification, saving, and cleanup of prior versions. Minor gaps remain, such as prerequisites (whether the expected assembly must already be open) and behavior on verification failure, but the description is still notably complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It references expected_assembly as the 'current expected project assembly' and skeleton_name implicitly as the new 'standard skeleton model,' but it does not explicitly define the parameters as model names, explain their relationship, or clarify what 'current' means relative to the expected_assembly parameter.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Create a standard skeleton model' in a particular assembly, and distinguishes it from sibling skeleton tools by specifying 'standard' and 'from the millimeter part template.' It further details verification, saving, and recycling, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 the tool: when a standard skeleton model must be created in the current expected project assembly. However, it never explicitly contrasts this with sibling tools like creo_create_project_skeleton_box or skeleton_surface tools, and gives no direct when-not-to-use guidance.

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