plasticity_hollow_solids

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: bodies must already be closed Solids, no opening face is removed, and all changes land in one native history step (implying a single undo). It still does not mention failure modes or what happens with non-Solid inputs.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and direction/wall-thickness semantics following. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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 5-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the direction semantics, and the history behavior well. The only gaps are the unexplained revision and intent parameters and the lack of failure-mode guidance.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the critical parameters: direction semantics ('inward preserves the outside envelope; outward preserves the original interior envelope'), wallThicknessMm units ('in millimeters'), and ids ('one or more current Solid bodies'). revision and intent remain unexplained.

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 and resource ('turn Solid bodies into closed hollow Solids') plus a key constraint ('without removing an opening face'). It does not explicitly name the closest sibling, plasticity_hollow_faces, so an agent must infer the distinction from the word 'Solids'.

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 when the tool applies ('current Solid bodies') and explains the two direction modes, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative routing (e.g., hollow_faces for faces, or thicken_sheets for sheets).

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