extend_entity

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

The description provides only surface-level behavior (extend to boundary) without disclosing edge cases, such as what happens if no intersection exists, supported entity types, selection rules, or side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden but omits these essential details.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words, and it front-loads the verb 'Extend'. However, its brevity makes it slightly cryptic, and a more structured layout (e.g., separate action, target, and boundary) could improve clarity without sacrificing 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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has three required parameters and no parameter descriptions or annotations. The one-sentence description is insufficient for a CAD editing operation, as it does not explain selection mechanics, boundary requirements, return values, or failure modes, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 description hints at 'boundary entity' and 'picked near the end', which loosely map to boundary_handle and pick_x/pick_y, but it does not explicitly define the parameters, coordinate system, or the exact meaning of boundary_handle. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description only partially compensates for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's function: extending an entity to a boundary. It identifies the action ('Extend'), the target ('entity picked near the end'), and the termination point ('boundary entity'), making it distinct from sibling operations like trim_entity or offset_entity.

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, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It does not mention that it is specifically for lengthening entities to a boundary or that the pick point must be near an end, leaving the user to infer usage from the action name.

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