creo_create_safe_feature_resume_copy

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral constraints: it refuses to overwrite, does not modify the input copy or current model, and only resumes features with no children and active parents. These details are not present in the annotations and give the agent important operational expectations.

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 efficiently packs the core action, feature constraints, and safety guarantees. It is not redundant, but the long clause structure could be slightly more scannable with clearer separation of the safety guarantees.

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 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral constraints an agent needs: source location, feature resumption condition, allowed feature types, overwrite refusal, and non-modification of inputs. It does not describe the return value or failure behavior, but those are not explicitly required given the annotations and schema richness.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters, including the expected_type_code enum mapping. The description reinforces the feature-type mapping by naming 圆角、倒角、孔、切除 but adds no new meaning beyond the schema.

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: create a new copy from a suppressed part copy and resume exactly one feature of a specific type (fillet, chamfer, hole, or cut) in the new copy. It also distinguishes itself from related safe-copy tools by emphasizing feature resumption rather than suppression or single-feature creation.

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 clearly conveys the intended scenario: restoring one childless, parent-active feature from a suppressed part copy without modifying the input or current model. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools such as creo_create_safe_feature_suppression_copy or the specific feature-copy siblings, so the when-not-to-use guidance is only implied rather than stated.

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