Extrude a sketch

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

With only a title annotation and no readOnly/destructive hints, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It clearly states that NEW makes a body and that ADD/REMOVE/INTERSECT modify existing bodies. It doesn't mention feature-tree side effects or regeneration validation, but the core mutating behavior is transparent.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the op modes are compressed into a compact, readable list.

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 a well-documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential conceptual ground: closed sketch regions, solid result, and boolean operations. It could add failure conditions, such as missing existing bodies for REMOVE/INTERSECT, but nothing critical is missing for basic 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?

Since the input schema already documents all 9 parameters, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete semantics to the op enum (merge, cut, overlap) and by emphasizing that the input sketch must have closed regions.

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?

States a specific operation (extrude), a clear resource (closed regions of a sketch), and the resulting output (a solid). This distinguishes it from sketch-drawing tools and many other modeling operations, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

Provides clear contextual use — closed sketch regions become a solid — and explains the different boolean modes. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose extrude over alternatives like revolve, sweep, or thicken, nor when not to use it.

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