create_from_init

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states that the tool creates a new file, never overwrites, requires the init file to exist and be non-empty, requires the target file not to exist, and requires both paths to be absolute .3d paths. It also implies the tool does not open the file itself by instructing the caller to use open_document afterwards.

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, well-structured, and front-loaded with the main purpose before detailing constraints. Every sentence earns its place: path requirements, existence rules, no-overwrite behavior, and the follow-up step.

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 two-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation facts: source validity, target constraints, path format, and next step. It leaves out explicit error/return behavior, but that is not critical for selecting and invoking 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the role and constraints of both parameters: init_datei must be an existing non-empty .3d template, and ziel_datei must be an absolute .3d path whose file does not exist but whose folder does. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema names.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it creates a new Cadwork file as a copy of an existing init/template file, and explicitly positions it as step 1 of the file bootstrap. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like open_document, which is referenced as the follow-up step.

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: this is step 1 of the file bootstrap, and after calling it the agent should call open_document(ziel_datei). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the sequential guidance and preconditions are enough for correct use.

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