hollow_model

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

Annotations are both false, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It reveals that hollowing creates internal cavities that trap resin, requiring drain holes – a behavior not stated in any structured fields. However, it doesn't mention reversibility, permissions, or side effects on existing models, so it's not a 5.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The action and purpose are front-loaded, and the follow-up instruction is a necessary addition without extra verbosity.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description leaves critical gaps. The meaning of feature_size_mm and wall_thickness_mm is absent, there are no prerequisites or side-effect warnings, and the return value is not addressed. The follow-up hint is helpful but insufficient for an agent to call the tool confidently.

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 description adds no information about the parameters. With schema coverage at 50%, feature_size_mm and wall_thickness_mm are undocumented, and the description fails to compensate by explaining what these parameters control. It also doesn't reinforce the meaning of models or scene_id beyond their 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 states a specific verb ('hollow') and resource ('models') with the explicit purpose 'to save resin'. It also indicates a distinct step from siblings by referencing auto_add_drain_holes as a follow-up, which differentiates its role in the workflow.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('to save resin') and gives an explicit follow-up instruction ('Follow up with auto_add_drain_holes'), implying sequencing without alternatives or exclusions. This is more than an implied usage, but it doesn't mention when not to use it or compare with other tools.

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