Convert a closed Sheet shell into a native Solid while preserving the original Sheet, so you can build watertight CAD bodies from surface geometry.
Create a native Solid from one closed Sheet shell while preserving the source Sheet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| intent | No | ||
| revision | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the source Sheet is 'preserved' and the input must be a single closed shell. However, it doesn't clarify the tension between 'preserving the source' and destructiveHint=true, nor error behavior for open/multiple shells, keeping it at 3.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier ('one closed Sheet shell') and the preservation note are packed efficiently. Appropriately sized for the operation.
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?
With no output schema the description needn't explain return values, and it does state the key precondition and preservation behavior. But for a mutation tool with three completely undocumented parameters, it leaves an agent short of what is needed to invoke it 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 description coverage is 0% and none of the three parameters (id, intent, revision) are explained in the description. The phrasing hints that the id refers to a Sheet shell, but intent and revision receive no meaning at all, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Create a native Solid from one closed Sheet shell'. It clearly differs from neighbors like plasticity_thicken_sheets, plasticity_join_sheets, and plasticity_cap_sheet_holes by stating the conversion (sheet to solid) and the scope ('one', 'closed'). No sibling is named explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.
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 implies the precondition (a closed Sheet shell) but gives no when-to-use guidance or alternatives, e.g. why choose this over plasticity_thicken_sheets or plasticity_insert_sheet. An agent must infer the routing decision entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.