creo_create_safe_datum_point_copy

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

With minimal annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so well: it states that only the new copy is modified, coordinates are limited to -1000..1000, overwriting is refused, and the source model is not saved. This adds a meaningful safety profile beyond the structured annotations, with no contradiction.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the core operation and then packs in all key constraints and safety behaviors without redundancy. Every clause contributes useful information.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description covers the main operational context: what is created, where it is created, coordinate limits, overwrite policy, and source-model handling. It does not explicitly state whether the new copy is saved or describe success/error returns, but the essential invocation decisions are covered.

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 schema describes copy_name, point_name, expected_model, and reference_csys, but x/y/z are just numbers with bounds (57% coverage). The description adds the missing meaning: x/y/z are Cartesian offsets relative to the specified coordinate system, in model units, and the refuse-overwrite behavior clarifies copy_name semantics.

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 specific verbs and names the exact resource and outcome: copying the current Creo part and creating a Cartesian offset datum point in the new copy relative to a specified coordinate system. It is scoped explicitly ('仅在新副本中') and includes constraints, making it clearly distinct from sibling safe-copy tools such as creo_create_safe_offset_datum_plane_copy.

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?

Usage is implied by the described operation: an agent can infer this tool is for creating a datum point on a safe copy of the current part. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or routing away from closely related sibling tools.

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