Create native offsets from selected planar Wire bodies; signed millimeter distances follow each Wire’s orientation.
Create native offsets from planar Wire bodies. Signed distance follows each Wire orientation and is measured in millimeters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | ||
| intent | No | ||
| revision | Yes | ||
| distanceMm | 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 destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates geometry. The description adds genuinely useful context that offsets are signed and follow Wire orientation in millimeters, but it never states that the source wires are replaced/consumed or mentions the required 'revision' token, leaving the destructive consequence underspecified.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core operation front-loaded and no filler. Efficient for a short description, though it is arguably too brief given the 4-parameter surface.
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?
A destructive mutation tool with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation should do more: it omits what is destroyed at the source, what 'revision' expects, and what 'intent' is for. The description is far from complete for the tool's complexity.
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 4 parameters. The description only partially explains distanceMm (signed, orientation-following, mm), while ids, intent, and the required revision token receive no explanation anywhere.
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 ('native offsets from planar Wire bodies'), which distinguishes it from the many offset siblings (offset_edges, offset_faces, offset_regions, offset_vertices). However, 'native offsets' and 'Wire bodies' are domain jargon that isn't fully unpacked.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative among the numerous offset_* siblings. An agent must infer the scenario entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.