add_extruded_profile_on_face

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, non-idempotent, and non-readonly, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description only adds a unit convention; 'inspect verified measurements and error evidence' is unsubstantiated marketing text that describes neither the mutation's effect on the model nor failure modes. With 0% schema coverage, the burden is on the description and it is largely unmet.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, so it reads quickly. The third sentence carries no actionable information and occupies space that could have described the face reference or the point polygon.

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?

A destructive geometry-creating tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation needs substantially more than a units note. An agent cannot tell from this description what a valid face string looks like or what the tool returns on success.

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% and none of the five parameters are described. The unit statement implicitly tells the agent that points_mm and depth_mm are millimetres, but the format of the required 'face' string, the meaning of name, and how corner_radii_mm maps to the point list are left entirely unexplained.

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 ('Add extruded profile on face'), which is clearer than a bare name restatement. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as add_extruded_profile_on_plane or add_boss_on_face, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 on when to choose this over add_extruded_profile_on_plane, add_extruded_profile, or add_boss_on_face, all of which sit in the same sibling list. No prerequisites, no mention that a valid face reference from list_faces is needed.

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