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 and does well: it discloses the coordinate frame for points (origin + u/v from add_plane), the direction logic (normal, reversed via reverse=True), the merge behavior, and that mass properties are returned. It omits failure/error conditions and what merge=False produces, but the core behavioral profile is present.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then a dense but well-organized set of parameter notes. Every sentence earns its place; the telegraphic style ('points_mm = ...') is efficient rather than padded.

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 plane dependency, direction, merge, the reused parameters, and the return value. It is nearly sufficient for correct invocation, missing only explicit error/edge-case behavior.

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, and it does: points_mm, depth_mm, reverse, corner_radii_mm, draft_deg, merge, and the plane are all explained, including the non-obvious 3D points-on-plane convention. Only 'name' is left undocumented.

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 on a reference plane) and explicitly ties the plane to add_plane, distinguishing it from add_extruded_profile and add_extruded_profile_on_face. An agent can select this over its siblings without opening the schema.

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 clause 'such as one add_plane made at an angle' makes the preconditions clear and points to the sibling that produces the required plane. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a direct comparison to add_extruded_profile_on_face, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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