creo_create_safe_feature_suppression_copy

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical safety behaviors: it refuses to overwrite, does not save the source model, validates multiple conditions, and suppresses only one feature in the new copy. This credibly supports destructiveHint=false and adds meaningful side-effect transparency.

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 one dense, front-loaded sentence that packs purpose, validation scope, constraints, and side effects without wasted words. Every clause carries decision-relevant 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?

Given four required parameters, no output schema, and a safety-critical operation, the description covers purpose, preconditions, validation keys, and non-destructive guarantees. It does not describe the return value or failure behavior, but the operation is well-scoped enough for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds conceptual grouping—model name, feature ID, and type are used for multi-check validation—but does not add format, constraints, or syntax details 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 precise action—create a new copy and suppress one active, visible, childless round, chamfer, hole, or cut feature—while explicitly saying the source model is not touched and overwrites are rejected. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling safe-copy tools like resume or round/chamfer 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 gives clear operational preconditions: the target feature must be active, visible, and childless, and the expected model/type must match. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so the usage guidance is mostly 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.