Hollows the most recently created solid body by removing one face and applying a uniform wall thickness in millimeters for enclosures, housings, or injection-molded parts.
Hollows out the most recently created solid body by removing one face and creating a uniform wall thickness. Use for enclosures, housings, or injection-molded parts. Thickness in millimeters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| thickness_mm | Yes | Wall thickness in mm |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does explain that the operation removes a face and creates a uniform wall, but it omits how the face is selected and does not explicitly warn that the original solid body is modified destructively.
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 three concise sentences and front-loads the core operation before giving use cases and parameter units. It has little wasted text, though the unit sentence is redundant with the schema.
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 simple one-parameter modeling tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the basic effect and use cases. However, it leaves out important context about face selection and the mutating nature of the operation, which an agent may need before invoking it.
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%, so the single thickness parameter is already documented in the schema. The description's mention of millimeters adds little beyond what the schema's 'Wall thickness in mm' already provides.
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 and resource: hollows out a solid body by removing one face and creating uniform wall thickness. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling modeling tools such as f360_extrude or f360_fillet.
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 description gives application examples like enclosures, housings, and injection-molded parts, which implies when to use it. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools for related modeling operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.