geom_extrude

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It states it mutates an actor and returns structured JSON with mesh counts, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects like whether the original mesh is modified in place, or if the operation is destructive or reversible. This is a moderate gap for a mutation tool.

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 structured with a clear summary, a list of parameters, a returns note, a knowledge base reference, and an example. It is moderately concise and front-loaded with the main action, though the parameter list is necessary. The example adds real value without being overly verbose.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 3 enum-like fields, and an output schema), the description is quite complete. It covers the key functional aspects, provides an example, and references a knowledge base for deeper info. The output schema is present, so return values are documented. Minor gaps include prerequisites and exact behavior of the solids_to_shells flag, but overall it's thorough.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description lists all 7 parameters with concise explanations, significantly compensating for the lack of schema-level documentation. It adds meaning for each parameter (e.g., direction_mode options and uv_scale purpose), though it could clarify parameter interactions or defaults further. Baseline is 3 due to the high coverage provided by the description itself.

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 clearly states the action ('Extrude faces on a DynamicMesh actor'), the resource ('DynamicMesh actor'), and provides an example with concrete arguments, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling geometry tools like geom_boolean_op and geom_remesh by focusing on extrusion.

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 provides a clear context for when to use this tool (extrusion on DynamicMesh actors) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It implies usage through the example and parameter descriptions, but lacks explicit exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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