creo_create_safe_parameter_copy

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

Even with annotations present, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: only the copy is written, the copy is regenerated, existing files are never overwritten, and the source model is not saved. These are meaningful safety guarantees beyond the boolean hints and are exactly what an agent needs to trust invoking a copying tool.

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?

One tightly packed sentence front-loads the core operation and then states key safety constraints. Every clause contributes information, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 mutation-style tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, regeneration behavior, and safety limits well. It does not state success/error behavior or what happens if copy_name already exists, but 'never overwrite' implies a guarded failure path. Minor gap, not critical.

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 only 50%, with new_value having no description beyond maxLength and parameter restricted by enum. The description does not compensate by explaining the meaning of new_value, how values are formatted, or the relationship between parameter and new_value. It only vaguely refers to 'allowed parameters,' which already appears in the enum.

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 into a new file, write only allowed parameters, and regenerate. It also clearly distinguishes its safety behavior from plain copy tools by stating it never overwrites existing files and never saves the source model. This is enough to differentiate it from the many sibling 'safe copy' tools.

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 the tool is for creating parameter-modified safer copies of the current part, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the closely related sibling creo_create_safe_multi_parameter_copy or other safe-copy variants. There is clear operational context, but no exclusions or alternative routing.

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