f360_extrude

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses units, direction convention, and that the result is a new body rather than a subtractive cut. It does not say what happens on failure (no closed profile), whether the feature is added parametrically to the timeline, or whether the model is modified irreversibly.

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 core action, then the prerequisite, then the unit/direction and default-behavior notes. No filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers prerequisite, units, direction, and result type. It stops short of failure modes or confirmation of what the call returns, but nothing essential for invoking it correctly is absent.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented, so baseline is 3. The description adds a direction convention ('positive = away from sketch plane'), but the schema enforces minimum 0.01, so negative values are impossible and the sign guidance is effectively moot and slightly misleading rather than informative.

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 (extrudes) and a specific input resource (the most recently created closed sketch profile) producing a specific result (3D solid body). This clearly separates it from f360_revolve, f360_fillet, f360_shell and other model-mutating siblings.

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 an explicit ordering prerequisite: 'Call after f360_draw_rectangle or f360_draw_circle', which tells the agent exactly which siblings must precede it. It also clarifies the default operation type ('not a cut'), though it never states what to do when no closed profile exists or when a cut/revolve would be preferred.

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