nx_extrude

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals that the tool mutates the model by creating or subtracting material, but it does not explain requirements for subtract mode, what happens when target_body_id is missing, whether operations are undoable, or what constraints apply to distance and reverse.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, and it efficiently states the core action and two outcomes. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to the missing guidance and parameter semantics.

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?

This is a modeling mutation with six parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and conditional behavior for subtract mode. Although an output schema exists, the description is not complete enough for an agent to safely infer prerequisites, parameter effects, or failure conditions.

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% across six parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails to do so. It only alludes to the sketch, distance-based extrusion, and target body; it says nothing about reverse, start_offset, or the conditional relationship between operation='subtract' and target_body_id.

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 clear verb ('Extrude') and resource ('a sketch') and distinguishes the two outcomes: creating a new body or subtracting from an existing target body. It does not mention the sibling nx_revolve or other modeling operations, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

It states that extrusion can create a body or subtract from a target, but it gives no explicit conditions for choosing between those modes, no prerequisites such as requiring a finished sketch, and no comparison to alternative tools like nx_revolve. The implied usage is present but not actionable guidance.

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