solid_extrude

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does add value: it names the Side-effects (creates a 3DSOLID, removes the temporary region) and calls the cleanup deterministic. It doesn't say whether the source profile object survives, what happens on failure, or whether a transaction is required.

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?

Three short lines: purpose first, then side-effects, then disambiguation. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what it makes, and which sibling to use instead) is front-loaded.

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?

With a full output schema and complete parameter documentation, the description covers what matters: entity created, side effects, and sibling routing. It could go further on workflow preconditions (valid profile reference, transaction handling), which is the only remaining gap for a mutating geometry 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the non-zero height and taper range. The description's mention of 'non-zero height' and 'bounded taper angle' merely restates schema constraints rather than adding new semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb plus resource plus constraints: 'Create an ACIS 3DSOLID by extruding a closed planar profile by non-zero height and bounded taper angle.' It is clearly distinguishable from solid_sweep and solid_revolve, and the resulting entity type is named explicitly.

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 Disambiguation line explicitly routes rotational needs to solid_revolve, which is real alternative-routing value. However, it doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., profile must already exist as a closed planar entity, or that a transaction must be active) or when-not-to-use beyond the rotational case.

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