rhino_create_extrusion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description being a mutation is consistent (no contradiction). The description adds some value with 'Caps closed curves' and the along-a-direction constraint. However, it does not disclose what happens to the source curve after extrusion, nor whether the result is a surface or solid — useful behavior beyond the annotations that is left unstated.

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 two short sentences with zero wasted words, and the primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence. Every clause earns its place — one defines the operation, the other a default cap behavior.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are covered by structured data. For a mid-complexity geometric tool, the description is adequate but incomplete: it omits the behavior when 'direction' is not supplied (defaults to a specific axis or is required?), and whether the original curve is retained. These are the kind of details an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 reported at 0%, so the description bears the burden of explaining parameters. It partially compensates by implying the 'direction' parameter ('along a direction') and the 'cap' parameter ('Caps closed curves'), but it does not explain 'distance' or 'curve_guid'. The schema itself carries descriptions for these fields, so the description adds only marginal meaning over the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Extrude') and resource ('existing curve') with a clear direction qualifier, which conveys the core operation unambiguously. The 'Caps closed curves' clause adds a specific behavioral detail. It distinguishes itself from siblings like loft/sweep/revolve by mechanism, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose extrusion over the many adjacent creation tools in the sibling list (rhino_create_loft, rhino_create_sweep1, rhino_create_revolve, rhino_create_planar_surface, rhino_create_patch). The description also does not clarify the default behavior when the optional 'direction' parameter is omitted, which is material to correct invocation.

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