create_part

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation creates something new and explicitly guarantees it will not replace the user's open documents. However, it does not mention prerequisites, whether the new part becomes active or visible, what happens if no document is open, or what the tool returns.

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 a single, tightly written sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then appends the key side-effect guarantee. Every word 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description says surprisingly little about the operational context. It does not state whether an active model or connection is required, whether the part is added to a specific document, or how the agent should observe the result. For a tool that performs a mutation, this leaves important invocation and follow-up questions unanswered.

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%, and the description never mentions the 'name' parameter or its optional/default nature. The schema's title 'Name' and default 'Part' provide minimal meaning, but the description adds no parameter-level semantics or guidance on how the name is used.

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 verb and resource: 'Create a new native part.' It then adds a meaningful behavioral qualifier, 'without replacing the user's open documents,' which helps differentiate it from document-level operations such as open_document or create_document. This is specific enough for an agent to identify the tool's purpose without inspecting other tools.

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 no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'without replacing' clause hints at a distinction, but it does not name sibling tools or state conditions such as 'use create_document when you need a new document' or 'use create_sketch for sketches.' An agent is left to infer usage context.

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