catia_shell

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: the operation removes the named faces, leaves the interior open, and produces a closed hollow body if no face token is supplied. This adds practical behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide, and it does not contradict the 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?

Two tightly written sentences present the main action first, then the result, then the critical warning. Every sentence carries meaning and there is no redundant wording.

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 description covers the operation's effect and the key pitfall, while the schema documents all parameters and defaults. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly state which solid body is operated on, but in context this is likely the active body, and the description's language implies a current solid.

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 schema already documents all parameters at 100% coverage, which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds value by clarifying that at least one face token is required, effectively adding a non-empty constraint to the faces_to_remove array that the schema does not explicitly express.

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 uses a specific verb ('Hollow') and resource ('the solid') and clearly describes the result: a thin-walled body with named faces removed to leave the interior open. This uniquely identifies a shell operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like catia_pocket, catia_thickness, or catia_remove_face.

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: when you want to hollow a solid into a thin wall and open specific faces. It also provides a critical condition for correct use: 'Give at least one face token, or the result is a fully closed hollow body.' It does not explicitly compare with alternatives, but the context is unambiguous.

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