create_part_from_scenario

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

The description has very low behavioral transparency. It doesn't disclose whether the operation is destructive (e.g., overrides existing parts), what happens on failure (despite parameters like 'save_partial_on_error' and 'return_partial_result_on_error' hinting at partial results), or any side effects like file creation or visibility. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it omits these critical behaviors.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it fails to earn its place by missing critical information. It front-loads the core purpose but lacks any detail on parameters or behavior, so the conciseness is more about under-specification than efficient information packing.

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 is complex (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), yet the description provides almost no context. It doesn't explain the return value (the created part object?), error handling (save_partial_on_error), or how to specify parameters. This is grossly inadequate for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters, but it mentions only 'scenario' and provides an example. It doesn't explain 'params' (the core object), 'output_path', 'visible', 'close_after_save', 'save_partial_on_error', or 'return_partial_result_on_error'. The agent is left guessing what each parameter means, especially 'params' which is a dynamic object.

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') and resource ('KOMPAS part') with an example scenario ('stepped_shaft'), which is clear enough. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like 'preview_part_scenario' or 'create_compression_spring'—the agent might confuse which creation tool to use for scenarios vs. springs. The name itself implies the purpose, but the description barely goes beyond a restatement, missing explicit differentiation from other creation 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 says 'from a supported parametric scenario' but doesn't explain when to use this tool over alternatives like 'preview_part_scenario' (for previewing) or other creation tools. It doesn't mention required input formats, how to list supported scenarios (maybe via a catalog tool), or any conditions that would make this tool inappropriate. This leaves the agent without clear guidance on tool selection.

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