create_compression_spring

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. For a mutating creation tool, it says nothing about side effects on the document, whether the part gets saved, required session state, or error behavior. The presence of save_partial_on_error and return_partial_result_on_error parameters hints at error semantics, but the description never explains them. No contradiction with annotations since none exist.

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 single sentence is short and front-loaded with the core action. But this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness - the sentence earns its place but is followed by nothing. It's efficient in length but the brevity comes at the cost of substance.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, a nested free-form object, and no output schema, yet the description provides no information about the params structure, return value, or operational behavior. For a creation tool that must receive a detailed spring scenario, this is substantially incomplete - an agent cannot reliably construct a valid call from this definition alone.

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 by explaining parameter meaning. It mentions the 'compression_spring scenario' as the source but never clarifies what fields the free-form params object should contain (dimensions, material, etc.) or what the five other parameters (visible, output_path, close_after_save, etc.) mean. The description adds almost nothing beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 (Create), a resource (KOMPAS compression spring part), and a source ('supported compression_spring scenario'). This is clear enough to know the tool's basic function. However, it doesn't differentiate from close siblings like create_spring_from_size or create_part_from_scenario, so an agent cannot tell which creation path to choose without opening other definitions.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related creation/preview siblings (preview_compression_spring, create_spring_from_size, create_part_from_scenario). No prerequisites, workflow context, or exclusion conditions are mentioned. The agent is left to infer the appropriate scenario from the tool name alone.

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