Create a simplified hollowed copy of a solid to reduce material and weight for CAD models.
Create a simplified shelled 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that a copy is created (not the original being modified) and that the result is 'simplified,' but it says nothing about parameter effects, required inputs, error conditions, or how the shell operation behaves with open faces, thickness, or direction.
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 front-loaded and free of filler, but it is not appropriately sized for a tool with 13 parameters and no schema descriptions. The extreme brevity here reflects under-specification rather than purposeful conciseness.
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 description is far too thin for the tool's complexity. With no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and 13 parameters, an agent cannot determine required inputs or invocation behavior from the description 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% across 13 parameters, and the description adds no parameter meaning. Terms like angle, radius, path_id, edge_ids, face_ids, thickness, and open_faces are not explained at all, leaving every parameter undocumented.
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 a specific CAD resource ('a simplified shelled copy of a solid'), making the operation identifiable. It does not explicitly differentiate from related siblings like offset, boolean, or loft, but the shelling operation is distinct enough for an agent to recognize it.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion conditions. The purpose implies a basic use case, but the description offers no routing help for an agent choosing among many CAD creation and modification tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.