fusion_cam_create_operation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a CAM operation, requires an explicitly selected tool, and that toolpath generation is separate. It also notes that unknown expression names are rejected (in the schema, not the description). However, it doesn't disclose side effects like whether the operation is persisted, whether it modifies the document immediately, or whether it requires an active document. The description adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and key constraints. The second sentence adds an important caveat about toolpath generation. No wasted words, but it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

This is a complex CAM operation creation tool with 3 required parameters, one of which is a nested object with 7 properties. There is no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage. The description doesn't explain the operation_id semantics, the relationship to setups, or what happens after creation. An agent would need to open the schema and infer a lot. The description is not complete enough for a tool of this complexity.

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 compensate. The description mentions 'explicitly selected tool' and 'parameter expressions', which maps to tool_library_url, tool_index, tool_fingerprint, and expressions. However, it doesn't explain document_id, operation_id, setup_id, strategy, or name. The schema has some descriptions for strategy and expressions, but the top-level description adds little beyond those. With 0% coverage, the description should do more to explain the parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('CAM operation') and adds key constraints: explicitly selected tool and parameter expressions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fusion_cam_create_setup and fusion_cam_generate, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The phrase 'Valid toolpaths must be generated and checked separately' clarifies that this tool only creates the operation, not the toolpath.

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 implies when to use this tool: when creating a CAM operation with an explicitly selected tool and parameter expressions. It also implies that toolpath generation is a separate step (use fusion_cam_generate). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like fusion_cam_create_setup or fusion_cam_parameters. The guidance is clear enough for an agent to infer the primary use case but lacks explicit exclusions.

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