build_extruded_closed_profile

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

The description mentions that segment coordinates and depth_mm accept string expressions over variables, which is a key behavioral detail. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it requires an active sketch), destructive potential, or error handling.

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 description is two sentences with a concrete example, no redundant text. It is concise but could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing key parameters).

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves major gaps. It does not explain the purpose of most parameters (exact, merge, plane, end_condition) or the return value. A user would need extensive trial and error.

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 0%, so the description is the sole documentation for 8 parameters. It only explains segments and depth_mm's expression capability, leaving plane, exact, merge, variables, end_condition, and reverse_direction completely undocumented. This is insufficient.

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 clearly states the tool builds an exact closed profile and extrudes it as one composite. This differentiates from build_closed_profile (profile only) and build_revolved_profile (revolved), though not explicitly. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like build_closed_profile or extrude_sketch. The only usage hint is about size variants using a new variables dict, which is helpful but insufficient for tool selection.

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