new_part

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key side effect that the new part becomes the current part, which is an observable state change. It does not discuss file persistence or unsaved-work handling, but for a zero-argument creation command the core behavior is clear.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the verb and object are front-loaded and the side effect follows immediately. Every word contributes meaning.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description explains what is created and the resulting state. It is nearly complete, though it could add one clause about what happens to the previously current part to remove all ambiguity.

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 no properties and the description reflects that by describing the operation as parameterless. With zero parameters, there is nothing for the description to add to the schema, so this is the correct baseline.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Create'), names the resource ('new empty part document'), and states the immediate effect ('becomes the current part'). This distinguishes it from siblings like new_assembly and open_part without needing to inspect schemas.

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 intended use is implied: call it when you want to start a new empty part. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives such as new_assembly or open_part, leaving the routing decision mostly to inference.

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