extrude_faces

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating nature is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: negative distance 'digs in', 'as one region' implies face merging, and it names the target-prerequisite tool (mesh_info). It omits what happens to the original faces or selection afterward, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then parameter semantics, then typical uses and the mesh_info hint. Every sentence earns its place given 0% schema coverage, though the dense run-on parameter block borders on terse rather than cleanly structured.

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 no output schema and 6 parameters, the description documents all behavioral knobs, workflow order, and the where-filter grammar, while annotations cover the safety profile. It only lacks detail on the post-extrusion state (return value, face identity), which is minor for this class of 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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: distance (average normal, negative direction), offset (world vector alternative), scale (taper about centre), inset (metres), and an exhaustive spec of the `where` sub-keys (normal/angle, x/y/z ranges, box, area, index, {} meaning everything). This compensates completely for the missing schema docs.

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 picked faces as one region') and quantifies the scope ('as one region'). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like inset_faces, extrude_profile, or transform_region without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage context ('raise a roof, make a post, a step, a window recess') and a workflow prerequisite ('Look at mesh_info first to see where the faces are'). It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so it does not reach the routing precision of a 5.

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