creo_create_safe_draft_copy

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

Annotations only carry generic booleans and provide no real safety detail, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses copy semantics, the default largest-cylindrical-surface selection, refusal to overwrite, and post-condition verification of active draft feature, feature-count increase, and nonzero solid-volume change. This is strong behavioral disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the optional surface behavior and the verification/refusal details. Every sentence adds value and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers the main workflow and safety verifications well, and no output schema exists to explain return values. However, the ambiguous direction_side parameter and the absence of any statement about the tool's return/result format leave gaps for an agent trying to invoke and interpret the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 43%, so the description needs to compensate. It does add useful meaning for hinge_plane (used as both hinge and direction reference) and drafted_surface_id (largest cylindrical surface if omitted). However, the required expected_model and the direction_side enum values (1 vs 2) remain unexplained, leaving a real ambiguity for callers.

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 verb and resource: copy the current Creo part and create one constant-angle draft feature in the new copy. It also distinguishes this tool from the many sibling copy tools by naming the exact feature type (draft) and by detailing the hinge/direction-plane mechanism.

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 for when this tool is appropriate: when a constant-angle draft feature needs to be created on a copy of the current part. It gives useful selection guidance for the optional surface ID, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it relative to other safe-copy siblings.

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