Offset faces of a body by a set distance in millimeters to create an offset surface body, allowing precise geometric adjustments.
Offset faces of a body by distance mm (creates an offset surface body).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| faces | No | ||
| distance | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool 'creates an offset surface body', which is useful but does not clarify whether the original body is modified or if the tool requires specific selection. No contradiction with 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with key information. However, it may be too brief given the tool's complexity and the lack of parameter details. It is neither verbose nor overly concise; it minimally serves its purpose.
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 three parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description lacks completeness. It does not specify return values, side effects, units (mm is mentioned but not enforced), or behavior when 'faces' is null. Essential usage context is missing.
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 bears full responsibility. It mentions 'body' and 'distance' in the text but does not explain the optional 'faces' parameter or provide formatting details. For example, it's unclear if 'null' for faces offsets all faces.
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 action ('offset faces'), the target ('body'), the parameter ('distance mm'), and the result ('creates an offset surface body'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like fusion_offset_plane or fusion_extrude by specifying face offsetting.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fusion_surface_thicken or fusion_shell. The description simply states what it does without providing context on prerequisites or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.