blender_geonode_extrude_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose that a new object is created and notes the geometry node involved, which implies a non-destructive generation process. However, it does not state whether the original profile or curve objects are left unmodified, what happens if inputs are invalid, or how the new object is selected/named beyond the schema's 'name' parameter.

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 three short, purposeful sentences with no filler. The core action is stated first, followed by the output behavior, then relevant use cases. Every sentence earns its place.

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 adequately covers the tool's purpose, output, and common applications, and the schema covers all parameters. However, there are no annotations and no output schema, so the description should provide more context about prerequisites, such as needing existing curve and profile objects, whether the operation is destructive to inputs, and how it compares to related sibling tools. These gaps leave an agent with some uncertainty when selecting and invoking the 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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, though it reinforces the idea of a profile swept along a path. One minor inconsistency: the description says '2D profile mesh' while the schema says the profile object can be a 'mesh or curve,' which could slightly mislead an agent about accepted profile types.

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 a specific action ('Extrude a 2D profile mesh along a curve path') and names the underlying method ('using the Curve to Mesh node'). It also conveys the result ('Creates a new object') and gives concrete use cases. It does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like blender_curve_to_mesh or blender_array_along_curve, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 use cases listed ('pipes, railings, moulding, and trim') give helpful context for when this tool is appropriate. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tools might be better alternatives for related tasks such as simple curve-to-mesh conversion or arraying geometry along a curve.

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