nx_shell

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It explains that 'inward=True keeps the outer dimensions,' which is a key behavioral detail about how wall thickness is applied. It also mentions the single-face limitation. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation modifies the body in place or any side effects, but the output schema covers return details, so the description provides reasonable behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with the key behavioral detail about the inward flag. Every word earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are already covered. The description provides the essential purpose, the inward behavior, and the single-face limitation. It does not explicitly explain how to choose the face index or what thickness units are used, but these are relatively minor gaps. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly in most situations.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It explains the 'inward' parameter's effect ('inward=True keeps the outer dimensions'), adding meaning beyond the schema title. However, it does not describe 'body_id', 'thickness', or 'remove_face_index' directly, though their names and schema titles are fairly self-explanatory. The description adds partial value but does not fully document all parameters.

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 (shell) and resource (a body), and explains the operation: remove a face and keep constant wall thickness. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like extrude or revolve, which are different modeling operations. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you want to hollow out a body with a single opening. It notes a limitation ('First version removes a single face'), which helps agents decide if this tool is appropriate for multi-face scenarios, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear enough for most cases.

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