extrude_face

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows it's a mutating operation. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether the original face is replaced, whether it requires a specific selection state, or what could be destroyed. It doesn't go beyond the annotation's safety profile.

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 a single short sentence with no redundancy. It is concise but slightly awkward due to the mixed language ('satu face' and 'sepanjang offset'). Still, it conveys the core operation efficiently without wasted words.

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 low parameter coverage, destructive annotation, and the presence of an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the required object_name, how face_index is used, or what happens to the object after extrusion. The tool is part of a large sibling context, but the description provides no clues about its integration or edge cases.

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 compensate for parameter clarity. It only mentions 'offset' ('sepanjang offset'), which gives some meaning to that parameter, but it omits face_index and object_name entirely. The required object_name is particularly important and unexplained, leaving a significant semantic gap.

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') and the target resource ('satu face' meaning one face), indicating a mesh operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like inset_face or bevel_mesh by the unique verb, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The phrase 'sepanjang offset' conveys direction/amount, giving a basic understanding of the tool's function.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like edit mode or object selection. It simply defines what it does. Without context on when to choose extrude_face over similar mesh tools, an agent lacks sufficient usage criteria.

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