extrude_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the requirement that the profile must be CLOSED and that the height is along Z. However, it does not mention error handling, whether the original profile is retained, or unit/direction 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?

Two short sentences with the purpose stated first. The tagline 'The 2D->3D bridge' is slightly decorative but adds memorable context without bloat.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main operation and a key prerequisite (closed profile). It omits edge cases, but the availability of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning to both parameters: 'height' is clarified as height along Z, and 'handle' is implicitly tied to the closed 2D profile. It does not explicitly name the parameters or explain handle's role as an entity identifier.

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 uses a specific verb ('Extrude') and resource ('CLOSED 2D profile') and clarifies the output ('3D solid'). It distinguishes from siblings like sweep_profile and revolve_profile by specifying straight extrusion along Z. The parenthetical '(polyline/circle)' further defines the input type.

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 implied through 'The 2D->3D bridge' and the tool's name, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given. Sibling tools like sweep_profile and revolve_profile are not referenced, so the guidance is weak beyond the core purpose.

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