pad

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the default direction per sketch plane (XY +Z, XZ -Y, YZ +X), what `reverse` and `symmetric` do to the geometry, and that inner loops become holes. It omits what happens with open/non-closed loops and gives no indication of failure or permission conditions.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core action front-loaded and directional defaults tucked into a parenthetical. Efficient, though the nested parenthetical makes it slightly harder to scan than two short sentences would.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the geometric behavior is well covered for a modeling operation. Gaps remain around the doc reference, the effect of color/material, and error behavior on invalid sketches.

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%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains `length`, `reverse`, `symmetric`, `result_name`, and the `sketch` input, but says nothing about `doc`, `color`, or `material`, leaving three of eight parameters with no semantic guidance anywhere.

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 ('Extrude the closed loops of a sketch') plus the output ('into a new solid `result_name`'), and notes that inner loops become holes. That distinguishes it from a cutting operation like `pocket` and from `revolve`/`sweep` without needing the schema opened.

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 description explains the mechanics of extrusion but never states when to choose this over siblings such as `pocket`, `extrude_polygon`, or `revolve`. Usage is inferable from the verb and the additive-solid outcome, but no explicit conditions or exclusions are given.

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