creo_reverse_project_skeleton_box_direction

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses concrete side effects: it 'regenerates and saves the skeleton and top assembly, displays the skeleton, and recycles older versions of only those model families.' This gives the agent a clear picture of what will be modified and cleaned up, going well beyond the annotation's generic destructiveness flag.

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 a single dense sentence with no filler; every clause adds a meaningful detail about the workflow. It could be more readable if split into separate sentences or bullets, but it remains efficient and appropriately sized.

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 covers the main purpose, verification steps, and side effects, which is useful for a destructive tool. However, with seven required parameters, no output schema, and minimal parameter-level documentation, it leaves gaps about how the expected dimensions and model names are used and what happens on verification failure.

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 14%, and the description does little to compensate. It references 'requested datum-plane side' and rectangular dimensions, but it never maps the seven required parameters like expected_assembly, expected_skeleton, feature_name, or expected_length/width/height to their roles in the operation.

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 identifies a specific action ('Reverse one verified rectangular skeleton extrusion'), a target ('requested datum-plane side'), and the mechanism ('redefining its Pro/TOOLKIT feature element tree'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as creo_reverse_project_sheetmetal_planar_wall_to_positive_z.

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 the tool: when a verified rectangular skeleton extrusion must be reversed to a requested side. It does not explicitly name exclusions or compare with alternative creation/resize tools, but the context is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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