Generate a simplified drafted copy of a solid, using angles, thickness, or radius for CAD modeling and geometry preparation.
Create a simplified drafted copy of a solid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| angle | No | ||
| guides | No | ||
| radius | No | ||
| path_id | No | ||
| distance | No | ||
| edge_ids | No | ||
| face_ids | No | ||
| profiles | No | ||
| solid_id | No | ||
| direction | No | ||
| thickness | No | ||
| open_faces | No | ||
| profile_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 implies creation of a copy (a write operation) but does not describe side effects, permissions, whether the original solid is modified, or what 'simplified' means.
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 short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise for a 13-parameter geometric operation. It has no structural elaboration to help an agent invoke the tool correctly.
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 complex CAD tool with 13 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It lacks usage, behavioral, parameter, and return-value context.
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?
There are 13 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description only indirectly references a solid and does not name or explain angle, radius, path_id, direction, thickness, or any other parameter, so it adds no parameter semantics.
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?
States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('simplified drafted copy of a solid'), but it is vague about what a 'drafted copy' actually is and does not differentiate from sibling solid-creation or modification tools like shell, offset, loft, or sweep.
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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites are given. The agent must infer all routing and context from the tool name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.