creo_create_safe_round_copy

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important safety behaviors: 'The tool refuses overwrite and verifies an active round feature, a feature-count increase, and a nonzero solid-volume change.' This adds substantial contextual value about side effects and validation that annotations only partially indicate.

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 three compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then edge-selection logic, then validation behavior. Every sentence contributes essential operational information with no filler.

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 is nearly complete for a copy-and-round tool: it explains the action, optional edge selection, overwrite refusal, and post-condition checks. It would be fully complete if it clarified the role of the required expected_model parameter and, to a lesser extent, copy_name/feature_name.

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 40%, and the description partially compensates by explaining edge_id behavior and constant-radius semantics. However, required parameters copy_name, feature_name, and especially expected_model are not semantically clarified in the description, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent selecting these inputs.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Copy the current Creo part and create one constant-radius edge round in the new copy.' It clearly identifies the tool's distinctive operation (round creation) and differentiates it from sibling copy tools like chamfer, shell, or dimension 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 context: this tool is for creating a constant-radius round on a copied part. It also provides an explicit branch for edge_id ('explicit edge ID may be supplied; otherwise the longest supported... is selected'), though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions.

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