plasticity_extrude_regions

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds useful context that regions must be 'explicit' and 'revision-bound' and that output is 'native solids', but does not disclose what gets consumed/destroyed or failure behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and zero filler. Every word carries meaning.

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 four-parameter mutating tool with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and minimal annotations, one sentence is insufficient. Key details such as extrude direction/distance semantics and parameter explanations the agent needs to invoke it correctly are missing.

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% for four parameters. The description hints at regionIds ('regions') and revision ('revision-bound'), but says nothing about the required distanceMm (extrude length) or the intent field, so two of four parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

Names a specific verb (Extrude), resource (revision-bound planar regions), and outcome (native solids). It distinguishes the 'regions' input from face/profile-based extrude siblings by naming regions explicitly, though it never contrasts itself against plasticity_extrude_faces or plasticity_extrude_profile by name.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no alternatives named. An agent cannot tell from this text when to choose extrude_regions over extrude_faces, extrude_profile, or sweep/loft_regions.

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