Extrude selected faces of a mesh in edit mode. Set distance for precise extrusion or leave at 0 for manual adjustment.
Extrude selected faces of a mesh object (must be in edit mode).
Args: object_name: Object name. distance: Extrusion distance (0 for manual manipulation).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| distance | No | ||
| object_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that distance=0 enables manual manipulation, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not explain the mutation's permanence, what happens when no faces are selected, or error handling. With no annotations, this is limited coverage of side effects.
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 compact: one sentence for purpose and one for arguments, with no superfluous detail. The key prerequisite (edit mode) is front-loaded, making it 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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover error cases, selection requirements, and post-conditions. It does not mention behavior when no faces are selected, whether the operation is reversible, or return values, leaving an agent under-informed for robust invocation.
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 defines distance as 'Extrusion distance (0 for manual manipulation)' which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare number and default. object_name is only labeled 'Object name', adding no extra insight, so the compensation for the 0% schema coverage is partial.
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 states the specific action: 'Extrude selected faces of a mesh object' and notes the edit-mode prerequisite. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like inset_faces or bevel_edges, which perform different modifications.
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 only usage guidance is the requirement to be in edit mode. It does not recommend when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or preconditions beyond edit mode, leaving the agent to infer applicability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.