creo_create_safe_shell_copy

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-idempotent operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'refuses overwrite' and 'verifies an active shell feature, a feature-count increase, and a decrease in solid volume,' which tells the agent what safety checks and side-effect verification to expect.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states the core operation, the second covers the optional parameter, and the third lists safety verification. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 covers the main workflow and verification behavior, but it leaves required parameters expected_model and feature_name undefined, and with no output schema it does not describe what the tool returns or how verification results are reported. It is adequate for a high-level understanding but would leave an agent uncertain about two required inputs.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It clarifies removed_surface_id ('A planar surface ID may be supplied as the opening; otherwise the largest planar surface is selected'), but required parameters copy_name, feature_name, and expected_model remain unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 compound operation: 'Copy the current Creo part and create one inward shell in the new copy.' This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling safe-copy tools (parameter copy, dimension copy, etc.) by naming the shell operation and the optional opening-surface behavior.

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 does not provide when-to-use guidance or route the agent away from alternatives. Given the large set of sibling safe-copy tools, an agent gets no explicit direction on when to choose shell copy over the other copy variants, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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