create_configuration

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

No annotations provided, so description fully covers behavioral traits: it discloses that creating a configuration activates it, warns to read active_config before relying on scoped operations, and notes idempotency. This is thorough and honest.

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 well-organized with clear sections (purpose, args, gotcha, related) and is bilingual which adds some length but is acceptable. It is informative without being overly verbose, though the 'verificado en vivo' note could be more concise.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description states it returns the configuration name. It covers behavior, parameters, side effects, and alternatives thoroughly. For a tool with 3 parameters, this is complete and leaves no obvious gaps.

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 has 0% parameter descriptions, but the description provides clear explanations for each parameter: name (unique, idempotent), parent (optional for derived configs), description (optional). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool creates a new configuration on the active part or assembly, explains what a configuration is (metadata sharing geometry but allowing variations), and distinguishes from the sibling build_variant_family which creates multiple configs in one call.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (v1 path for variants without duplicating files) and names an alternative tool (build_variant_family) for creating multiple variants. Also includes a gotcha about activation side effect, guiding the agent on proper usage.

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