creo_create_safe_dimension_copy

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral guarantees: it refuses to overwrite, does not save the source model, validates against both symbol and expected old value, restricts new values to 0.5–2x the old value, and only works on non-relation-driven dimensions. This gives an agent a clear picture of side effects and safety boundaries.

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 two dense, information-rich sentences. It front-loads the most decision-relevant constraints—validation, single-dimension modification, copy-only behavior, no overwriting, and no source save—without wasting words.

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 tool with five fully documented required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context and safety behavior. It clearly states what is modified, where it is modified, and what is not touched, so an agent can correctly select and call the tool.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces the relationship between expected_value and new_value and mentions the 0.5–2x limit, but it does not add significant parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the operation: double-validate the current Creo part, modify exactly one non-relation-driven positive dimension in a new copy, and regenerate. It names a specific verb, resource, and scope, and the mention of 'non-relation-driven' and 'one dimension' helps distinguish it from sibling safe-copy tools such as parameter and multi-parameter copies.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when you need to safely modify a single dimension in a new copy without overwriting or saving the source. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like create_safe_parameter_copy or create_safe_multi_parameter_copy, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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