thicken_mesh_walls

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the mechanism: 'Detects thin-wall regions and pushes vertices outward along their averaged normals' and that it is a surgical modification. It also describes the return value. However, it does not discuss potential side effects, permissions, or performance implications, which are limitations given the lack of annotations.

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 concise, using bold for emphasis and a docstring format. It front-loads the action and uses clear language without unnecessary fluff. It could be slightly more streamlined, but overall it earns its space.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, when to use it, what parameters are, and what it returns. The return description ('Dict with number of vertices modified, amounts, and output path') fills the gap left by the missing output schema. The description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It does so by explaining each parameter: file_path is the STL path, amount_mm is the offset distance with default 0.5, and output_path defaults to '<name>_thickened.stl'. This provides context beyond the raw schema, though the default in the schema is an empty string, creating a minor inconsistency.

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 the tool's action: 'Thicken thin walls in a mesh by offsetting vertices outward.' It specifies it is a geometry-level fix that surgically modifies the mesh, distinguishing it from regeneration-based tools. The description also mentions when to use it after specific failure detections, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use after predict_print_failures() detects thin_walls or after design_scorecard() flags wall thickness issues,' providing clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the provided guidance is sufficient for most scenarios.

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