create_part

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the result is an 'empty' document and that material/part number should be set at creation, but says nothing about where the document is written, whether it is saved, or what happens on failure.

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?

Front-loaded one-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args block; the rationale about BOM/mass earns its place by explaining why to pass metadata. Minor redundancy in listing both part_number and description on one line.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and most parameters are covered. However, for a mutating creation tool with zero annotations, the description omits connection prerequisites and document persistence 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 coverage is only 17% (just 'instance'), and the description compensates well: it explains template values ('metric' mm default, 'english' inches, or a full .ipt path), gives a material example ('Steel, Mild'), and explains that part_number/description are BOM iProperties. Only name is left thin ('Display name').

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new empty part document', and extends it to material and part-number iProperties. It is clearly not a sketch/feature/assembly creation tool, though it never explicitly contrasts with create_assembly or create_sketch.

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?

Implies when to use it via the rationale about avoiding 'Generic' BOM entries, and points to list_materials for material sourcing. It gives no explicit when-not guidance or prerequisites (e.g. must a document/connection be active first).

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