Create a 3D solid by extruding a 2D polygon profile with specified height, material, and component in CST Studio.
Extrude a 2D polygon profile into a 3D solid in CST Studio.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Solid name | |
| height | Yes | Extrusion height | |
| points | Yes | List of [x, y] coordinate pairs forming the profile polygon | |
| material | No | Material name | PEC |
| component | Yes | Component name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral aspects such as whether the operation is destructive, requires existing geometry, or what side effects occur. It only states the basic action.
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, direct sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks critical context such as extrusion direction, axis, or any special behaviors. It is insufficient for a complete understanding of tool usage.
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?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the tool description does not need to add much. However, it adds no extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., extrusion direction, polygon closure requirements), warranting a baseline score of 3.
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 clearly states the verb 'Extrude' and the resource '2D polygon profile into a 3D solid', and specifies the domain 'in CST Studio'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling creation tools like cst_create_brick or cst_create_cylinder.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.