Extrude a sketch into a 3D solid by a set length in millimeters. Set symmetric to true to extrude in both directions, or reversed to flip the direction.
Pad a sketch by length mm. symmetric=True extrudes both directions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Pad | |
| length | No | ||
| sketch | Yes | ||
| reversed | No | ||
| symmetric | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only adds the symmetric two-direction behavior. It does not say whether the sketch is consumed, whether it appends to or creates a solid, whether it requires a closed profile, or what permissions/state are needed for a mutation.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the primary operation is stated first and the behavioral note second. It is efficient, though slightly terse given the number of undocumented 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?
A 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs substantially more disclosure than two sentences. Missing sketch-handling behavior, prerequisites, and coverage of three parameters leaves the agent under-informed.
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 the description must compensate, yet it only clarifies length (unit mm) and symmetric (both directions). The name, sketch, and reversed parameters are left entirely undocumented, and 'reversed' direction semantics are never explained.
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 states a specific verb (Pad) and resource (sketch) plus the key dimension (length in mm), so an agent can tell this is an additive material operation versus siblings like pocket or revolve. It stops short of naming any alternative to differentiate explicitly.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no hint about prerequisrequisites (a closed sketch), and no comparison to pocket/revolve/loft, which are the obvious alternatives. The 'symmetric=True' sentence describes a parameter's effect, not a usage condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.