extrude

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the add/cut operation and the finite-depth nature, but it does not state that this mutates the document, whether an open document is required, or how existing geometry is affected. It largely restates information already implied by the schema's operation enum and required sketch_id.

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 a single sentence with action first and no filler, making it easy to parse. It is concise, though slightly too terse to fully support a tool with a required document_id and a nested spec object.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, this sparse one-liner is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It leaves out the required document_id, expected return values, and behavior of reverse/draft_angle, providing only the sketch prerequisite as 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only weakly hints at sketch_id ('existing sketch') and depth ('finite-depth'). It does not explain document_id, the nested spec object, reverse, draft_angle, or operation semantics beyond the schema's own constraints, so it fails to compensate for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 uses 'Add or cut' as a specific operation and 'finite-depth extrusion from an existing sketch' as the resource/target. It clearly communicates what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like revolve or create_feature.

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 phrase 'from an existing sketch' implies the prerequisite that a sketch must already exist before calling. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion criteria, and no alternative tool is mentioned, so the agent must infer usage from context.

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