add_extruded_profile_on_plane

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, and the description does not build on that by explaining what geometry gets consumed or created, whether an existing body is modified, or what happens when merge is toggled. The only added context is the unit convention (mm, degrees, kg) and a vague mention of measurements and error evidence, which is thin for a destructive modeling operation.

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 with the operation front-loaded, so there is no bloat. However, the second and third sentences read as generic boilerplate that would fit almost any tool in this server rather than targeted information.

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?

This is a complex destructive geometry operation with 8 undocumented parameters and no output schema, and the description covers none of the details an agent needs, such as plane naming conventions, valid point-array shapes, or what the call returns. The gaps are substantial relative to the tool's complexity.

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 8 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and it does not. It supplies the unit convention, which does clarify depth_mm, draft_deg, and points_mm, but plane, merge, reverse, corner_radii_mm, and name receive no explanation of expected format or effect.

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 first sentence is essentially the tool name restated ('Add extruded profile on plane'), with only the added qualifier that it runs through the native SOLIDWORKS engine. It never differentiates this tool from the close siblings add_extruded_profile, add_extruded_profile_on_face, or add_revolved_profile, so an agent reading only the description cannot tell which one applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named despite several near-identical extrusion siblings. The closing sentence 'Inspect verified measurements and error evidence' hints at a post-call workflow but is not actionable selection guidance.

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