Turn a 2D sketch into a 3D part by extruding it to a specified distance. Choose to create a new body, unite with existing geometry, or subtract material.
Create a native NX extrusion from an existing sketch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| distance | Yes | ||
| sketchId | Yes | ||
| operation | No | new_body |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create' without mentioning side effects, the impact of the optional 'operation' parameter (unite/subtract), failure conditions, or what happens to the part. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 a single sentence with no wasted words, which is concise, but it is also under-specified. It does not front-load any critical details beyond the basic purpose, and it lacks structure that would help an agent parse actionable information.
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 tool with 4 parameters (3 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain prerequisites beyond having a sketch, does not describe the operation parameter, and leaves the agent without enough information to call the tool correctly or interpret results.
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%, and the description provides no information about the parameters (name, sketchId, distance, operation). It only mentions 'sketch' indirectly, but does not explain the meaning of distance, the operation enum, or required versus optional parameters. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('native NX extrusion') and states the prerequisite ('from an existing sketch'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like nx_create_rectangle_sketch or nx_create_simple_hole, which address different operations.
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 only implies that a sketch must already exist, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. There is no guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.