Make Body

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

With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the annotations indicate this is a mutating operation but not destructive. The description adds that the body acts as a container and mentions the return value, but it doesn't disclose whether the body is automatically added to the active document, whether existing bodies are affected, or any prerequisites (e.g., must have an active document).

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 extremely concise, using two purposeful sentences. It front-loads the primary action and immediately follows with the container context and return value, with zero filler.

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 simple creation tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. However, it omits any mention of document requirements (e.g., active document needed) or naming rules, which an agent might need for robust invocation.

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?

The input schema has only one optional parameter 'name' with a default, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description doesn't explicitly explain the 'name' parameter, but given its simplicity and default, the baseline of 4 applies because the description compensates adequately for a single self-evident parameter.

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 action: 'Create a PartDesign Body' and specifies its role as a container for subsequent sketches/features. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like make_sketch or pad, though it doesn't explicitly name them as alternatives.

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 usage context ('Subsequent sketches/features go inside it') but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference sibling tools such as make_sketch or add_part as alternatives. This leaves the agent to infer the appropriate sequencing.

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