solidify

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates geometry. The description adds useful offset direction semantics, but it does not explain what happens to the original surface, whether the operation is reversible, or how materials/normals are affected.

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 compact sentences with zero filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the offset explanation follows immediately.

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 destructive mesh operation with four parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the definition is only partially complete. It covers the key thickness and offset semantics but omits object, even, and the post-operation behavior.

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%, so the description must carry the burden. It adds meaningful semantics for thickness ('in metres') and offset ('-1 grows inward, 1 outward, 0 both ways'), but it leaves the required object parameter and the even parameter unexplained.

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 operation ('Give a surface thickness') on a clear resource and gives examples (walls, cloth, leaves). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby mesh-editing siblings such as extrude, inset, or subdivide, 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?

The parenthetical examples imply useful contexts, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative sibling named. Usage is suggested rather than specified.

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