Convert a surface into a solid by adding wall thickness. Specify thickness, direction, and optional second thickness for offset walls.
Thicken a surface into a solid of a given wall thickness.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Name for the resulting feature. | |
| reverse | No | Thicken the other way. | |
| surface | Yes | Reference token of the surface. | |
| thickness | No | Thickness in mm. | |
| second_thickness | No | Thickness on the other side, mm. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false), and the description adds the core behavioral trait: converting a surface into a solid. However, it offers no context about whether the source surface is preserved, where the resulting solid feature is created, or what happens with invalid/unclosed surfaces.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler — every word contributes to the core meaning of the operation. It is appropriately compact for a geometrically simple action, though it foregoes the opportunity to pack in routing or prerequisite information.
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?
Together with the fully documented schema, the one-line summary makes the tool minimally callable. But the definition is thin overall: it omits when to prefer this over related thickness/shell/close-surface siblings, what surface conditions are required, and what the resulting feature looks like — and there is no output schema to compensate.
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 100%, with all five parameters (surface, thickness, reverse, second_thickness, name) already documented inline with units and defaults. The phrase 'wall thickness' loosely mirrors the thickness/second_thickness parameters but adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 verb ('Thicken') and resource ('a surface') with a clear outcome ('a solid of a given wall thickness'), making the surface-to-solid transformation unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like catia_thickness (which thickens a solid) and catia_gsd_close_surface by describing the wall-thickness action, though it never explicitly names 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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description neither states prerequisites (e.g., an existing surface reference token) nor routes away from related siblings such as catia_thickness, catia_shell, catia_gsd_close_surface, or catia_gsd_offset_surface, leaving selection entirely to inference from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.