Thickens a surface into a solid with a specified thickness to create thin skins or shells from surface lofts.
Turn a surface into a solid of given thickness (thin skins, shells from surface lofts).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cut | No | ||
| doc | No | Document title or path. Defaults to the active document. | |
| name | No | Optional name for the new feature. | |
| side | No | side1 | |
| surface | Yes | Surface feature name (e.g. a surface loft). | |
| thickness | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description accurately reflects the tool's function (solidification of surfaces). Since the annotations explicitly state that the tool is neither read-only nor destructive, the description doesn't need to add safety context, achieving a standard score. It does not contradict any 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 highly effective single sentence. It is concise, uses appropriate technical language, and front-loads the core function of the tool without any unnecessary filler.
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 complex CAD operation, this definition is quite complete. It tells the agent precisely what transformation to expect (surface to solid) and the context of use (thin skins/shells). While parameter details for optional flags are missing, the core intent is captured perfectly.
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 primarily focuses on the two required parameters, 'surface' and 'thickness,' giving them clear contextual meaning. Since schema coverage is only 50%, the description only needs to define the core transformation; it cannot effectively explain the semantics of the secondary optional parameters like 'cut' or 'side' without exceeding conciseness limits.
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 ('Turn a surface into a solid') and the primary input ('surface') and output ('solid of given thickness'). The parenthetical clarification helps define the scope within CAD, specifically referencing 'thin skins' and 'shells'.
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 implies usage by mentioning specific geometries like 'surface lofts' and 'thin skins,' suggesting when this tool is more appropriate than simple extrusion. However, it does not explicitly state when *not* to use it or compare it against other specific siblings (e.g., `sw_extrude`) to create clear boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.