extrude

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that distance is ignored when extent_type='all' and lists operation modes, but does not state that this mutates the active document, what prerequisites (active document/sketch) are required, whether it is undoable, or what errors occur if no sketch exists.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded, followed by a compact Args list that adds necessary parameter meaning. There is minor redundancy ('Distance in mm' appears twice) but no wasted sentences.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the main parameters and omits return values appropriately because an output schema exists. However, it lacks prerequisite/side-effect context (active sketch/document, undo behavior) needed for safe invocation.

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 17%, but the description explains five of six parameters: distance units/condition, direction choices, operation choices, sketch_index semantics, and extent_type values. It omits instance, though the schema itself describes that parameter, so the description largely compensates for the low coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('Extrude') and resource ('sketch profile') and states the outcome ('create 3D geometry'). It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as revolve or sweep_rotation, so it is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

It explains parameter choices like extent_type='all' and operation options, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to alternatives such as revolve. The agent must infer that this is the tool for linear extrusion from the purpose statement alone.

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