Create a Part Studio

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

With no readOnly/destructive annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Add' clearly signals a mutating operation, and 'The new element id is at result.response.id' usefully states where the result appears. However, it does not mention permissions, failure behavior, or any workspace-level side effects beyond adding the tab.

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 short sentences with no filler: the first states the core action and target, and the second gives the key output location. It is front-loaded, scannable, and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with three fully documented required parameters)Skip, the description and schema cover the essential invocation details, and the response-location note helps the agent use the result. It could mention that the document/workspace must already exist or explicitly note that this creates a new tab rather than modifying an existing one, but the definition is largely complete.

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 documents all three parameters with clear descriptions, including the exact URL context for doc and ws, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter detail, but none is required because the schema already provides sufficient meaning.

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 'Add a Part Studio tab to a workspace' uses a specific verb and resource, and clearly identifies the operation as creating an element inside an existing workspace. This distinguishes it from sibling creation tools such as onshape_create_assembly or onshape_create_document.

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 phrase 'to a workspace' implies that the tool is used when adding a Part Studio tab to an existing document/workspace, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over sibling tools or what prerequisites must be satisfied. Usage is primarily inferred from the name and one-line description.

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