build_extruded_closed_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the parametric expression capability, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., does it merge automatically? What if the profile is not closed?), error behavior, or prerequisites. Essential behavioral traits are omitted.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. However, it lacks structural formatting (e.g., bullet points) that could improve readability, especially for a parameter-heavy tool.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It explains only the variable expression aspect, leaving out parameter semantics, output details, and workflow integration. A more complete description would address the purpose of each parameter and the expected result.

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 description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'segments' and 'depth_mm' (accept expressions over variables), but ignores the other six parameters (exact, merge, plane, end_condition, reverse_direction, variables). The description is insufficient for an 8-parameter tool.

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's action: 'Build an exact closed profile and extrude it as one composite.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from siblings like 'build_closed_profile' which only builds, and 'extrude_sketch' which extrudes an existing sketch.

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 implies usage for parametric designs by mentioning string expressions over variables, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., building a closed profile then extruding separately). No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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