creo_modify_project_feature_dimensions

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses the full behavioral lifecycle: guarded changes, regeneration, read-back verification, active-feature verification, model save, older-version move to Recycle Bin, and rollback on any failure before save. This is far more transparent than the annotations alone.

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 tight sentences: the first states purpose and scope, the second describes the full execution/side-effect sequence, and the third states the rollback guarantee. There is no filler and the most important selection 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 is thorough about behavior and side effects, which is crucial for a destructive mutation tool. However, there is no output schema and the description never states what the tool returns to the agent, leaving that aspect to inference.

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?

The schema already documents expected_model, feature_name, expected_value, and new_value, with 67% coverage. The description adds useful meaning by explaining that changes are guarded by dimension symbol, expected old value, feature ownership, and relation status, and that one to eight modifications map to the schema's min/max constraints. It does not deeply define dimension_symbol, but the added context still elevates it above the schema baseline.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Modify one to eight driving dimensions of one named feature in the current expected Creo project part.' It also specifies the concrete workflow and distinguishes itself from the many sibling creation/copy/suppression tools by focusing on guarded modification of an existing feature's dimensions.

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 implies when to use it: when a named feature's driving dimensions need to be changed in the current project part, with safety guards and save behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for selection among siblings.

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