plasticity_extrude_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the constraint that the profile must be unambiguous and closed, which is useful behavioral context. It does not, however, disclose what gets destroyed, reversibility, or output details beyond 'native Solid.'

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. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions rather than being a structural flaw.

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?

For a destructive extrusion tool with four undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain required inputs, expected outcomes, or how the operation affects the model, leaving critical context absent.

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 has four parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description mentions none of them. There is no explanation of 'id', 'distanceMm', 'revision', or 'intent', leaving the agent to guess entirely from parameter names alone.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Extrude ... profile ... into a native Solid.' It distinguishes the input as a 'closed planar Wire profile,' which differentiates it from siblings like extrude_faces or extrude_regions. However, it does not explicitly name those alternatives, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It hints at the required input type ('one unambiguous closed planar Wire profile'), but does not tell the agent when to choose this tool over other extrusion tools.

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