partdesign_thickness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond that — '(undoable)' — confirming the document mutation can be reversed, but it says nothing about whether a new feature is created in the tree, how it interacts with the active body, or what happens on invalid face selection.

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 core action is stated first and the reversibility note trails it. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is part of why the parameter behavior goes unexplained.

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 an 8-parameter parametric modeling operation with 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin — the mode/join/inside semantics are the crux of correct invocation and are entirely absent. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but the input-side gaps remain substantial.

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 8 parameters, and the description only glosses two of them (faces, thickness). The cryptic parameters 'mode' (default 'Skin'), 'join' (default 'Intersection'), 'inside', and 'name'/'doc_name'/'object_name' receive no explanation, leaving the agent to guess at the meaning of the tool's most consequential options.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Hollow out a PartDesign solid') plus the mechanism ('opening selected faces and setting wall thickness'), so an agent can distinguish it from feature siblings like partdesign_draft or partdesign_hole. It does not explicitly name a contrasting sibling, so it falls short of a 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing about requiring an active PartDesign body, an existing solid, or how face selection relates to the result. Alternatives (e.g. boolean-based hollowing) are not discussed, so the agent must infer applicability from the one-line purpose.

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