Shape add polygon prism

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

Annotations already disclose the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, closed world), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful geometric behavior (extrusion along +z, CCW winding requirement, meter units for points), but says nothing about units for height, how at/rotate_deg are applied, or what gets created/returned.

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?

Compact single sentence plus a short parameter note, with the core operation front-loaded before the format detail. Minimal waste, though the trailing points note is somewhat telegraphic.

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 7-parameter geometry-creation tool with no output schema and no per-parameter schema descriptions, the definition leaves the majority of parameters unexplained and omits return/result behavior. An agent cannot confidently supply at, rotate_deg, color, name, or surf_id from this description.

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 carries the full burden, yet it only documents points (format and meters) and gestures at height. The remaining five parameters (at, name, color, rotate_deg, surf_id) receive no explanation anywhere, leaving most of a 7-parameter tool semantically opaque.

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?

States a precise verb (extrude), the resource (a 2D polygon in the xy plane), the direction (along z by height), and the required winding (CCW). The FreeCAD Sketch+Pad analogy and the explicit points=[[x,y],...] (m) format let an agent distinguish it from siblings like shape_extrude_sketch or shape_push_pull without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied via the operation analogy; there is no explicit statement of when to pick this tool over shape_extrude_sketch, shape_push_pull, or shape_add_box. No prerequisites or constraints on applicability are given, leaving the selection decision to inference.

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