catia_gsd_extrude

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent), so the agent knows this creates rather than mutates geometry. The description adds the symmetric limit1/limit2 scoping model but says nothing about which geoset/body the new surface lands in or what side effects accompany creation; with annotations present, a 3 is fair.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core action and output type come first, and the limit clarification follows. Every clause carries 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?

With full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials for calling the tool are documented, and annotations cover the safety profile. It is slightly thin on where the resulting surface is placed and what happens to the source profile, but nothing critical is missing for basic 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates limit1/limit2 as extents on each side in mm, which lightly reinforces the bidirectional framing but adds little beyond the schema's own 'Length along direction (mm)' / 'Length opposite to direction (mm)' descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb (extrude), the input (profile curve/sketch), and the output type (surface) along a direction vector. Specifying 'surface' implicitly separates it from the solid-extrude siblings catia_pad/catia_pocket, so an agent can pick it without opening either schema.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over catia_gsd_sweep, catia_gsd_revolve, or catia_pad, nor any prerequisite stated (e.g., an active geoset or an existing profile in the document). The reader must infer usage entirely.

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