add_wall_thickness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation and destructive nature are known. The description adds the mechanism 'via Solidify' and the unit 'mm', providing some context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose whether the Solidify modifier is applied non-destructively or baked, nor what happens to existing geometry. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage but leaves room for more detail.

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 brief phrase with no redundant words or fluff. It effectively conveys the core mechanism and unit in four words, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized. There is no wasted content, so it earns a perfect conciseness score.

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?

Despite having annotations and an output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It lacks usage guidance, fails to differentiate from sibling tools, and provides minimal behavioral context. For a tool that mutates geometry and may be destructive, the agent would need more information about when and how to use it, such as whether the modifier is applied or baked. The short description leaves the agent under-informed.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'mm', which clarifies the unit for thickness_mm, and the tool name implies object_name refers to the target object. However, it does not explicitly explain parameter meanings or relationships. The unit information adds value, but the description is too terse to fully compensate for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 'Ketebalan kulit via Solidify (mm)' clearly states the tool adds wall thickness using the Solidify modifier, with units in millimeters. It provides a specific verb and resource, making the purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'solidify_mesh', which appears to perform a similar operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or references to sibling tools like 'solidify_mesh' or 'bevel_mesh'. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context, which is inadequate given the presence of closely related tools.

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