add_extruded_slot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and partially meets it: it discloses the return value ('Returns mass properties'), the geometric semantics of the half-round ends, and a volume formula. It does not state whether the extrusion is unioned into an existing body, whether it is additive vs. subtractive, or any failure conditions.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and shape, then tight parameter semantics. The volume formula is arguably extra but earns its place by pinning down exactly how width/length/depth combine.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, and the description covers geometry and return value reasonably well. It leaves open whether the result is added to an existing solid or creates a standalone body, and gives no error or naming guidance for a 5-parameter mutation tool.

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, and it largely does: start_mm/end_mm are [x, y] mm points that centre the half-round ends, width_mm is the tab width, depth_mm is the +Z extrusion. Only the optional 'name' parameter is left unexplained.

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 specific verb (Extrude) and resource (a stadium / rounded tab, lug or link) and gives the geometric definition, which distinguishes it from cut_slot and the generic add_extruded_profile. It never explicitly names a sibling, so differentiation is by shape description only.

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 explains what the geometry is but gives no when-to-use guidance or when-not, and does not mention the obvious alternatives (add_extruded_profile, cut_slot). Usage is only implied by the shape description.

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