add_thickness

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating nature is expected. The description adds a bit of behavioral context by explaining that 'index: -1 for auto' and detailing thick_type meanings, but it does not disclose side effects, duplicate-handling behavior, or what happens after the property is added. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then systematically documents each argument. Every line earns its place given the schema's lack of property descriptions, and the bilingual hints add clarity without bloat.

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?

All parameters are documented and the tool is simple, but the description lacks usage guidance, return-value information (no output schema exists), and any note about how this thickness property is later applied to plates. This leaves an agent without enough context to confidently choose this tool over other property-related siblings.

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 schema provides no property descriptions, so the Args block in the description fully compensates. It explains name as thickness name, t in meters, thick_type with explicit meanings for values 0 and 1, and index's auto behavior. This is exactly the semantic detail an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a plate thickness property.' It is not a tautology and the Chinese gloss reinforces the meaning. There is no ambiguity about what entity this tool creates, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools by the resource name.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that thickness properties are global definitions to be assigned later, nor does it reference any sibling tools or conditions that should guide selection. The intended usage is merely implied by the name and parameter list.

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