mesh-extrude

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'extrude and translate' but does not mention whether the operation is destructive, requires a selection, affects the original mesh permanently, or what happens if no selection exists. No side effects or prerequisites are described, leaving the agent without crucial behavior expectations.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's function. It is extremely concise, with no wasted words, and front-loads the primary action. Given the simplicity of the tool, this level of brevity is appropriate and earns high marks for conciseness.

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?

The description is insufficient for a tool that modifies mesh geometry. It lacks details on prerequisites (active object? edit mode?), the result of extrusion, whether translation is applied relative to original or extruded face, and any return values or side effects. With no output schema, the description should compensate but fails to provide essential operational context.

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 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no parameter information beyond the schema titles. The titles like 'Mesh object to edit (defaults to active)' and 'Translation applied to the extruded region [x, y, z]' provide basic meaning, but the description does not explain how to use these parameters, their formats, or their interplay. The description adds no value beyond the schema's inherent hints.

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 'Extrude the selected region and translate it' clearly identifies the action (extrude and translate) on a specific resource (selected region of a mesh). It distinguishes from sibling mesh editing tools like bevel or inset by focusing on extrusion plus translation. However, it is somewhat generic and doesn't mention that it operates on mesh objects or any specifics about the extrusion behavior.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't describe prerequisites (e.g., having a mesh selected, being in edit mode), nor does it mention scenarios where other tools like 'mesh-bevel' or 'mesh-inset' might be more appropriate. The description only states the operation without context.

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