create_part_studio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the creation side effect and, more usefully, reveals the exact return values: the new elementId and the list of other Part Studios. It also exposes the hidden pitfall about the empty default 'Part Studio 1', which is valuable behavioral context beyond a basic description.

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 concise, well-structured, and every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the primary action, then adds return semantics and guidance about the default Part Studio pitfall in a natural order.

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 tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what to expect back and how to use the result. It could add more detail about constraints or failure modes, but the key contextual elements—what it creates, what it returns, and how to avoid a common mistake—are present.

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 100%, so the schema documents all three parameters, but those descriptions are thin ('Document ID', 'Workspace ID', 'Name for the new Part Studio'). The description adds only general context like 'existing document', not deeper meaning for the parameters themselves, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Create a new Part Studio in an existing document'), clearly distinguishing it from other creation tools like create_document and from querying tools like find_part_studios. It also states what the tool returns, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 gives explicit guidance to prefer this tool's returned elementId over re-enumerating via find_part_studios, and frames the tool as the appropriate way to create a Part Studio in an existing document. This directly helps an agent choose it among many sibling tools.

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