creo_set_current_top_skeleton_backframe_size

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description substantially enriches this by disclosing the full mutation sequence: pre-read old values, verify feature ownership and relation-driven status, atomic modification, regeneration, save, read-back verification, return the assembly, and moving old versions to the recycle bin. This far exceeds the structured annotation signal and matches the destructive hint.

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 but contains no filler; every clause adds a distinct behavioral fact. It is front-loaded with the core purpose before diving into verification and cleanup steps, though the long compound structure slightly reduces scannability.

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 destructive, state-changing Creo tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential lifecycle: pre-checks, mutation, regeneration, save, verification, return value, and version cleanup. It does not explain what happens when the feature is relation-driven or when verification fails, but the disclosed workflow is strong enough for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 must carry the meaning of new_length and new_width. It does so by identifying them as the target length and width applied to d2/d3 of the backframe feature. A slight gap remains because it does not explicitly map new_length to d3 and new_width to d2, nor state units, but the parameter meaning is largely recoverable.

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 the exact resource (the 'rear frame' feature ID 40 in the current skeleton), the exact dimensions to be modified (d3, d2), and the intended result (target length/width). It clearly distinguishes this tool from broader siblings like creo_modify_project_feature_dimensions or creo_resize_project_skeleton_box by fixing the target feature and workflow.

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 intended use case is implied: use this when you want to resize the backframe of the current assembly's skeleton. However, there is no explicit statement of when not to use it or which sibling tool should be chosen instead under similar conditions, so an agent has to infer selection criteria.

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