Thicken a sketch

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

Annotations provide no read-only or destructive hints, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It mentions that the operation gives thickness but does not disclose that it modifies the document, creates or mutates bodies, requires an existing sketch feature, or what side effects occur.

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 one tight sentence with no filler. The core idea is front-loaded and the clarifying contrast with a solid-depth operation is included without wasted words.

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?

This is an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, but the description only restates its basic purpose. It omits context about document modification, body-combination behavior, defaults, and what the caller should expect after invocation.

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 every parameter is already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable under the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 names a specific operation: giving a sketch region wall thickness. The phrase 'instead of a solid depth' helps distinguish it from extrusion, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like onshape_extrude or onshape_shell.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as extrude, shell, or revolve. The description does not state prerequisites, when it should be preferred, or when a different feature tool would be more appropriate.

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