creo_create_safe_part_mirror_copy

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

Annotations only declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description discloses meaningful behavioral guarantees: the source model is never saved, overwrite is refused, and the success criteria include an active mirror feature, a feature-count increase, and a nonzero solid-geometry change. This is valuable context beyond the annotations.

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 sentence with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the safety/verification clauses each add necessary behavioral information without redundancy.

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 the absence of an output schema and the four parameters with weak schema descriptions, the description should explain expected_model and success return behavior more explicitly. It does cover verification criteria well, so it is minimally viable but not complete for an agent invoking this tool blind.

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 25%, with only mirror_plane described. The prose partially maps the parameters through 'current part,' 'new copy,' 'mirror feature,' and 'named datum plane,' but expected_model is still ambiguous and no explicit per-parameter explanation is given. This is partial compensation for a low-coverage 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 verb and resource: copy the current Creo part and create a whole-part mirror feature about a named datum plane. It distinguishes this from the many sibling safe-copy tools by naming the mirror operation and its safety contract.

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 frames the operation and its safe usage context: source model is never saved, overwrite is refused, and the result is verified. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the purpose is specific enough to route an agent reasonably.

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