Extrude a sketch into a 3D solid with optional depth, reverse direction, or up-to reference. Verify measurements and error evidence for reliable native SOLIDWORKS modeling.
Extrude sketch through the independent native SOLIDWORKS engine. Public geometry units are mm, degrees and kg. Inspect verified measurements and error evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Extrude | |
| up_to | No | ||
| sketch | Yes | ||
| reverse | No | ||
| depth_mm | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotent, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds genuinely useful context by fixing the unit system (mm, degrees, kg) and noting that verified measurements and error evidence are returned. It still omits what is actually modified (feature/body creation), whether it adds material versus removes it, and how failures surface.
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 action front-loaded and no padding. The closing sentence about inspecting measurements is vague, but the overall structure is tight.
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 destructive, five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition is thin. It should at minimum explain the sketch reference, the depth-versus-up_to choice, and the direction flag.
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% for five parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. Only the unit hint implicitly clarifies that depth_mm is in millimetres; nothing explains the relationship between depth_mm and up_to, what values up_to accepts, what 'reverse' flips, or what the 'sketch' string should reference.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Extrude sketch'), so the core action is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as add_extruded_profile, loft_sketches, or cut_sketch, which an agent must choose between.
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 guidance on when to use this versus add_extruded_profile or cut_sketch, nor any stated prerequisite that a sketch must already exist. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.