creo_link_project_sheetmetal_wall_to_skeleton

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that existing assembly relations are preserved, conflicting targets are rejected, skeleton dimensions are temporarily modified and restored for verification, models are saved only after verification, the sheet-metal part remains active, and older versions are recycled. This richly characterizes the mutation behavior consistent with destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core action and prerequisite context. It packs many behavioral details into one long sentence without obvious fluff, though it could be more readable if broken into shorter sentences.

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 thoroughly covers preconditions, side effects, verification, saving, and version cleanup. However, it does not explain the return/output behavior, and with no output schema and 14 undocumented parameters, an agent still lacks some information needed to confidently invoke the tool.

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 burden of explaining parameters. It conceptually mentions length/width symbols, skeleton dimensions, and expected dimensions, but does not explain the specific meanings of feature IDs, expected model names, thickness, or the exact symbol mapping. With 14 required parameters, this leaves many parameters opaque for an agent.

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 precise action: creating two assembly relations that drive the planar-wall sketch length and width from skeleton dimensions. It also specifies the required context (verified top-level assembly, sheet-metal component active), making the tool clearly distinguishable from the many sibling modeling and safe-copy tools.

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 required context: a verified top-level assembly with the sheet-metal component active. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the prerequisite and specific scope provide strong usage guidance.

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