creo_create_safe_rectangle_extrusion_copy

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it modifies only the new copy, refuses to overwrite, succeeds only when the active feature is saved, and requires solid volume to increase. These details give an agent a clearer safety and precondition model than the annotations alone provide.

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 two sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the safety constraints. It is compact and readable, though slightly dense in phrasing like 'solid blind protrusion from a centered rectangular sketch only in the new copy.'

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 tool with nine parameters, no output schema, and many sibling copy tools, this description is incomplete. It omits parameter semantics, what the tool returns, and how failures beyond overwrite refusal are signaled. The safety preconditions are helpful, but too much essential context is left to the schema.

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 11%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the nine parameters, but it does not. It mentions a centered rectangular sketch and implies width, height, and depth, yet it does not clarify required fields like expected_model, feature_name, or copy_name, nor the optional plane parameters.

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 the current part and create one solid blind rectangular protrusion only in the copy—so an agent can tell this is an additive extrusion-copy tool rather than a cut, hole, revolve, or parameter copy. It clearly identifies the resource and operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling copy tools by name.

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 no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as creo_create_safe_rectangle_cut_copy or creo_create_safe_thru_hole_copy. It implies usage for adding a rectangular extrusion to a copy, but it never states explicit use cases, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria.

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