Shell Body

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutable (readOnlyHint: false), non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, but the description adds minimal context—it implies removal of material but doesn't specify if this creates a shell-like structure or leaves the body open. No rate limits, auth needs, or detailed behavioral traits are disclosed.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on parameter usage, expected outcomes, error conditions, and how it fits within the CAD modeling context provided by siblings.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 4 parameters, the description fails to compensate. It mentions 'removing a face' which loosely relates to 'face_selection', but doesn't explain 'thickness', 'body_name', or 'body_index', leaving key inputs undocumented.

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 ('hollow out a body') and the method ('by removing a face'), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'extrude' or 'thicken_surface'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'split_body' or 'offset_faces' that might also involve body modification.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a solid body), exclusions (e.g., not for surfaces), or compare to siblings like 'create_hole' or 'offset_faces' for hollowing operations.

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