creo_create_safe_multi_parameter_copy

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

Annotations only mark the operation as non-readonly and non-idempotent; the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it refuses to overwrite existing files, never saves the source model, and regenerates the copy after parameter writes. These behaviors go beyond what annotations reveal and are consistent with them.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action, states the batch scope, and lists safety constraints without any filler or repetition. Every clause earns its place.

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 adequately covers the main behavior and safety profile for a three-parameter safe-copy tool: what is copied, how many parameters can be updated, regeneration, overwrite refusal, and source-model preservation. It does not reveal the return value or error behavior, but no output schema exists and the core invocation details are present.

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 67%: copy_name and expected_model already have descriptions in the schema. The description adds that updates target 'business whitelist parameters' and that 1-10 are allowed, but it does not explain the meaning of individual whitelisted parameters or how new_value is applied beyond what the schema's enum and maxLength already convey.

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 (copy current Creo part to a new file), a specific resource (the current part), and a precise scope (batch-write 1-10 whitelisted business parameters then regenerate). This clearly differentiates it from the numerous sibling copy tools, especially the singular creo_create_safe_parameter_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?

The description implies usage context through 'copy to new file', 'batch write 1-10 parameters', and safety guarantees, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion conditions such as 'use the single-parameter variant for one update'. The guidance is clear but inferred rather than stated.

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