solidify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains offset direction but omits whether the operation is destructive, how it interacts with existing geometry, and what the required 'object' parameter expects. This is a mutation tool, so those gaps matter.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the most important parameter behavior. No filler or repetition.

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 4-parameter mesh operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It should at least clarify 'object' and 'even', and ideally note whether the original surface is replaced or duplicated.

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. It adds useful meaning for thickness (metres) and offset (-1 inward, 1 outward, 0 both ways), but says nothing about 'object' or 'even', leaving two of four parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb ('give') and resource ('surface thickness'), and gives examples of intended surfaces (walls from planes, cloth, leaves). It does not differentiate from sibling mesh-editing tools such as extrude_faces or inset_faces, but the core purpose is clear.

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 examples imply some use cases, but the description never states when to choose solidify over alternatives like extrude_faces, inset_faces, or subdivide. There are no exclusions or explicit routing guidance.

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