shell_body

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

Annotations already state this is a non-read-only, non-open-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds operation-specific behavior about wall thickness and opening faces, but does not disclose whether the original body is modified in place, what failures occur for non-solid bodies, or units/validation constraints.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the operation and its optional extension efficiently.

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 core operation is conveyed, and the output schema plus annotations reduce the need to explain returns and safety. Still, for a mutating CAD tool it omits important context such as whether the body is modified in place, what happens when thickness is too large, and how side affects the result.

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 only 50%, so the description helps by clarifying thickness as wall thickness and open_faces as optional face removal. However, it does not explain the side parameter or add more detail for body, leaving the remaining semantics mostly to the schema.

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 CAD operation and outcome: hollowing a solid to a wall thickness, with optional open faces. It is clear enough to distinguish from most siblings such as boolean or pull_faces, though it does not explicitly route against alternatives.

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?

It implies the operation when a hollow shell is desired, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools like boolean or pull_faces.

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