creo_dimension_active_rectangle_four_side_insets

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, but the description reveals exactly what is mutated: guarded dimensions are removed, symmetry assumptions are removed, edges are projected, dims are added, the section is regenerated and verified, and the sketch is updated without saving. This is rich behavioral detail beyond the annotation.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the active-sketch precondition, but it is a single long run-on sentence listing many sequential steps. It could be more readable as a short structured sequence; despite no redundancy, its structure is not concise.

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 complexity, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and only a destructive annotation, the description is impressively complete: it covers prerequisites, the full mutation sequence, verification, and post-conditions. It still leaves some ambiguity around optional paramers and failure behavior, but for a complex CAD tool it is largely sufficient.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It maps expected_model, model_edge_ids, and inset reasonably well, but it never explicitly explains inner_length, inner_width, feature_id, or feature_name. 'Remove the two guarded overall rectangle dimensions' may allude to inner_length and inner_width, but the connection is too implicit for an agent to confidently bind 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 names a specific multi-step operation on a specific resource: while a rectangular sketch is actively being edited, it removes guarded dimensions and symmetry assumptions, projects four specified edges, creates four inset dimensions, and updates the sketch. This is far more precise than the tool name alone and distinguishes it from siblings like creo_constrain_active_rectangle_symmetric_to_axes.

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 states the precondition: the expected Creo model must be actively editing a rectangular sketch. It also states the operation's constraints, such as not accepting, exiting, regenerating the solid, or saving. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool.

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