creo_create_safe_thru_hole_copy

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

Annotations already convey readOnly=false and destructive=false, and the description adds concrete behavioral facts beyond that: 'refuses overwrite' and 'succeeds only when the copy volume is reduced.' This gives the agent useful failure/success conditions not present in structured metadata.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The main action is stated first, followed by placement and safety behavior, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core workflow, placement method, overwrite refusal, and success condition. It leaves some parameter-level details to the schema, but the essential context an agent needs before calling is present.

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 10%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by explaining placement via 'one named datum plane and two named offset datum planes,' which maps to primary_plane, reference_plane1/2, and offsets. However, it does not explain expected_model, thru_side, or the exact role of each offset, so parameter semantics remain incomplete.

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 regular straight thru-all hole only in the new copy.' It clearly distinguishes this from advanced hole or other copy tools by saying 'regular straight thru-all hole' and 'only in the new copy.'

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 for when to use this tool: when a simple straight thru-all hole is needed in a safe copy of the current part. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state exclusions, so it misses the top bar, but the 'regular... thru-all' wording implies it is for the basic hole case.

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