entity_extrude

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation and safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context about extrusion direction (XY polygons go toward +Z), but says nothing about errors on non-planar or degenerate input, nor about what entity is returned.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the orientation caveat immediately after. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 10-parameter geometry-mutating tool with nested parent/path objects, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, two sentences leave major gaps — particularly which coordinate frames the points and origin occupy and how the resulting entity is identified.

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% across 10 parameters, and the description mentions none of them. The reader must infer that 'points' is the planar polygon and 'distance' the extrusion length, and gets no help at all with origin, unit, parent, model_id, active_path, tag or name.

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 and resource ('Extrude a planar polygon along its normal'), which is clearly distinct from sibling creation tools like entity_create_box or entity_create_cylinder. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings or clarify whether it creates a new entity or modifies an existing one.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., the polygon must be planar and closed), and no mention of alternatives such as entity_create_mesh for non-planar geometry. The orientation note is a hint, not usage guidance.

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