Offset polygon or polyline outlines by a specified distance to create wall thickness or plaster layers; optionally replace the original geometry with the offset result.
Offset a polygon/polyline outline by distance (positive = outwards for counter-clockwise outlines), e.g. wall thickness or a plaster layer. replace=True swaps the original for the result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| unit | No | document | |
| uuid | Yes | ||
| replace | No | ||
| distance | Yes | ||
| smooth_corners | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds important behavioral detail beyond the annotations: positive distance means outward for counter-clockwise outlines, and replace=True swaps the original for the result. The annotations already state the tool is not read-only and not open-world, and the description does not contradict them. It does not discuss reversibility or return behavior, but it is otherwise transparent.
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 two short sentences with no wasted language. The core operation and the replace behavior are front-loaded and easy to scan.
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?
Given five parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is only partially complete. It covers the core offset semantics and replace behavior, but omits unit handling, smooth_corners meaning, and what is returned. Still, the annotations cover the safety profile and the main operation is understandable.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains distance direction and the replace flag, but says nothing about unit, uuid as the target object, or smooth_corners. Two of five parameters receive useful semantic context, leaving substantial gaps.
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 and resource: offset a polygon/polyline outline by distance. It adds practical examples (wall thickness, plaster layer) and the direction convention. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as vw2d_edit or vw2d_transform, so it falls short of a 5.
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 examples 'wall thickness or a plaster layer' give clear context for when this tool is useful. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended usage is concrete rather than merely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.