creo_resize_project_skeleton_box

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the result is regenerated, checked by volume and envelope, saved, displayed, and older assembly/skeleton versions are recycled. This complements destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every sentence adds value: the first states the operation, the second explains safety guards, and the third covers side effects. No wasted words.

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 complex, destructive tool with no output schema, the description provides strong context about postconditions, verification, and version recycling. It does not detail error behavior when expected values mismatch or state the return value, but the operational flow is substantially covered.

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 8%, so the description must compensate, but it only broadly references length/width, expected old values, and dimension symbols. It does not explain expected_assembly, expected_skeleton, feature_name, or new_feature_name, leaving 12 parameters largely under-documented.

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: 'Change the length and width dimensions of one verified skeleton box feature'. It clearly distinguishes this resize operation from sibling creation and direction tools like creo_create_project_skeleton_box and creo_reverse_project_skeleton_box_direction.

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 usage context is clear: use when resizing length and width of a verified skeleton box feature while preserving its height. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the stated scope is specific enough to guide selection.

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