add_extruded_profile_on_plane

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the coordinate frame, depth direction via reverse, that the result is 'merged with the part,' and that it returns mass properties. However, it does not explain what happens when merge=False or clearly state the mutation/feature-creation behavior.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds technical information. The points_mm explanation is slightly awkward ('or all [u, v] in that frame') but overall efficient with no filler.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical geometry inputs and return value. It remains incomplete on several parameters (name, merge=False behavior, corner_radii/draft details) and provides no error or permission context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the most complex parameter (points_mm) in useful detail and clarifies depth_mm and reverse, but defers corner_radii_mm, draft_deg, and merge to add_extruded_profile, and says nothing about the name parameter or plane parameter format.

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 verb and resource: 'Extrude a polygon drawn on a reference plane,' and clarifies the plane source via add_plane. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely named sibling add_extruded_profile_on_face, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by 'drawn on a reference plane, such as one add_plane made at an angle,' but there is no explicit when-to-use versus add_extruded_profile or add_extruded_profile_on_face. It references add_extruded_profile only for parameter behavior, not for choosing this tool.

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