Hollow out a SolidWorks part to a specified wall thickness, optionally removing selected faces to create open shells for lightweight designs.
Hollow out the part, leaving walls of the given thickness.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | No | Document title or path. Defaults to the active document. | |
| name | No | Optional name for the new feature. | |
| outward | No | ||
| thickness | Yes | Wall thickness in mm. | |
| remove_face_points | Yes | Faces to open (remove). Empty = closed hollow. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates the model; the description adds the useful behavioral detail that the result is a wall of the given thickness. However, it says nothing about which document is affected, reversibility, or what happens when remove_face_points is non-empty versus empty (a distinction only the schema hints at).
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?
A single well-formed sentence with no waste, front-loading the operation and its outcome. Its efficiency is partly a function of being thin rather than dense with useful detail.
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 five-parameter geometry mutation with no output schema and only minimal annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits the document targeting, the inward/outward direction choice, and the open-face behavior, which are the decisions an agent must get right to call this correctly.
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 80%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description reinforces only 'thickness' and adds nothing about 'outward' (the one parameter with no schema description) or about how remove_face_points interacts with the hollow result.
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?
Specific verb plus resource: "Hollow out the part, leaving walls of the given thickness" clearly names the shell operation and its geometric result. It is distinguishable from siblings like sw_thicken or sw_cut_extrude, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. requires an open part document), and no routing to alternatives such as sw_thicken or sw_cut_extrude. The agent must infer the context entirely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.