create_feature

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure on its own. It does convey important operational details: entity_type is an o3d_ enum, how properties and calls are structured, the reference syntax, and the API5/API7 distinction. However, it does not disclose side effects on the document, failure behavior, return values, or prerequisites such as an open document, so the behavioral picture remains incomplete.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by dense but relevant clarifications for the most confusing aspects. Each sentence adds value, and the warning about API7 and SDK reading is placed at the end without bloating the definition.

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?

This is a complex tool with nested settings, references, and API-version caveats, and the description covers several of these well. Still, it intentionally defers to external SDK documentation and does not explain how an agent would discover valid entity_type values, property names, or member names. There is no output schema and no mention of return behavior or error conditions, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool this intricate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter explanations. It does this well for the complex parameters: entity_type is described as an o3d_ enum, properties as mappings to writable names, calls as member/arguments/expect with optional via getters, and references with a concrete syntax. It does not explicitly explain document_id or name, but those are relatively self-evident from the 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 states a specific action and resource: 'Create any API5 NewEntity-supported feature.' It further clarifies scope with concrete examples (shells, lofts, sweeps, ribs, drafts, patterns, mirrors) and distinguishes API7-only operations from this tool. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like create_part or create_sketch, but the resource scope is reasonably clear.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when creating API5 NewEntity-supported features with documented definition settings. It also provides an exclusion: 'API7-only operations require api_cast/api_batch,' and advises consulting the SDK first. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like create_part or update_feature, so the guidance is useful but not fully explicit about all alternative routes.

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