extrude

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose operation kinds, extent options, direction handling, participant requirements, and return values, which is substantial. However, it does not state side effects such as body modification for cut/join, prerequisites for the sketch, or what happens with the original bodies, leaving important behavioral context implicit.

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 tightly structured and front-loaded with the purpose statement, followed by a compact parameter legend. Every line contributes value and there is no wasted prose, making it easy to scan despite the dense technical content.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is not complete enough. It covers core behavior and return values but omits several parameters, side effects, prerequisites, and alternative-tool context, leaving an agent to guess important aspects of correct invocation.

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 the schema's lack of parameter explanations. It adds real semantics for operation, extent_kind, direction, and participants, but leaves name, profile_index, is_full_length, and the precise meaning of expression only partially or entirely unexplained. This is meaningful but incomplete coverage for a 9-parameter tool.

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 first sentence clearly states the action ('Extrude') and the target resource ('a sketch profile') and the result ('into a feature'), which distinguishes it from related tools like revolve or shell. The dense domain-specific parameter list reinforces the tool's core behavior without ambiguity.

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 implies usage for converting sketch profiles into features and documents internal operation choices, but it never explicitly says when to prefer extrude over alternatives like revolve or shell, nor does it state contraindications. The guidance is useful for selecting parameters within the tool, not for selecting the tool itself.

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