thickness

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes key behavioral aspects: the default 'reversed' behavior grows the wall inward, and 'open_faces' creates openings. However, it omits important details such as whether the operation is destructive to the original solid, what happens to existing features, or any permission/rate-limit considerations. It adds some value but is incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 structured as a list of parameter explanations, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each line is concise and directly relevant. It could be slightly more efficient by grouping related parameters, but overall it is well-organized and free of fluff.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential operational semantics but misses behavioral context such as the operation's effect on the model (e.g., does it create a new feature or modify the existing solid?), error conditions, or expected return values. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to invoke correctly without further exploration.

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 compensate. It provides meaning for most parameters: 'base' is the solid to hollow, 'open_faces' is a list of face handles, 'thickness' is wall thickness in mm, 'reversed' controls inward/outward growth, and 'join' and 'mode' are given example values. The only parameter not explained is 'name', which is likely trivial. This is strong compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource: 'Hollow out a solid into a shell,' which is a clear, unambiguous statement of what the tool does. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'shell_solid' by emphasizing the hollowing operation, and the rest of the description elaborates on the parameters without diluting the core purpose.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool is for hollowing a solid, and the parameter descriptions hint at when to use certain options (e.g., 'reversed' for inward vs outward growth). However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'shell_solid' or 'pocket', nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites stated. The description provides adequate context but lacks routing information.

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