add_extruded_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does substantial work: it discloses auto-closure of the polygon, first-plane coordinates, extrusion by depth_mm, and return behavior with a volume formula. It does not mention edge cases like self-intersecting polygons or extrusion direction, but the disclosed behavior is meaningful.

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?

Three focused sentences with no filler. The core action and input format are front-loaded, and the secondary details (auto-closing, coordinate plane, returned mass properties) each earn their place.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key facts an agent needs: input format, units, closure behavior, coordinate system, and return value. Minor gaps remain around the name parameter and extrusion direction, but the description is reasonably complete for this tool's complexity.

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. It explains points_mm as '[[x,y], ...] in mm', notes the polygon is auto-closed, and clarifies depth_mm as the extrusion amount, including how it affects volume. The optional name parameter is not explained, but the required parameters are well covered.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Extrude a closed polygon into a solid', followed by concrete input syntax. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing polygon/prismatic shapes (vs. splines or primitive boxes) and explicitly references add_box for coordinate conventions.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Unlocks arbitrary prismatic shapes (brackets, profiles, polygons)' tells an agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as add_extruded_spline or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for routing.

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