hollow_part

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

Annotations declare it is not read-only and not destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the shell remains joined by faces on slopes and curves (a correctness guarantee), and openings are meant to be carved separately. It does not mention undo behavior or limits, but the added algorithmic detail is genuine value.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the follow-up carving note second. No wasted words, though the parenthetical '(fewer voxels, interiors)' is slightly redundant with the opening clause.

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 mutating part-editing tool with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented schema, the description covers what the operation produces and the natural next step. It omits any mention of undo/reversibility, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 100% (part, project, thickness all documented with examples and bounds), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description does not add format or semantics beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Empty the inside of a part, keeping a shell') and immediately clarifies the resulting form ('fewer voxels, interiors'). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling draw_* and cut_edges tools that add or subtract geometry rather than hollowing 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?

Provides clear sequencing guidance: hollow first, then 'Carve openings (doors, windows) afterwards if needed.' It tells the agent where this fits in a workflow but doesn't name alternative tools or state when hollowing is not appropriate.

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