Extrude a sketch to create a new body or subtract it from a target body in Siemens NX.
Extrude a sketch into a new body, or subtract it from an existing target body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reverse | No | ||
| distance | Yes | ||
| operation | No | create | |
| sketch_id | Yes | ||
| start_offset | No | ||
| target_body_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| status | No | success | |
| feature | Yes | ||
| message | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 two operations (create and subtract) but omits side effects, requirements (e.g., whether a target body is mandatory for subtract), error conditions, or how the extrude interacts with the feature tree. This is minimal disclosure for a complex CAD operation.
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 redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately distinguishes the two modes. This is exemplary conciseness.
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?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, 2 required, no annotations, and a schema that leaves all parameters self-explanatory, the description is inadequate. It does not cover prerequisites, parameter meanings, failure modes, or expected outputs. An agent would need to infer too much, making the description incomplete for reliable invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It hints at the 'operation' parameter (create vs subtract) and 'target_body_id' implicitly via 'existing target body', but it does not explain 'distance', 'reverse', 'start_offset', or the interplay between these. The description adds minimal value beyond the raw 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 clearly states the verb 'Extrude' and the resource 'a sketch', and specifies the two distinct outcomes: creating a new body or subtracting from an existing target body. This differentiates it from sibling tools like nx_hole or nx_chamfer, which have different purposes.
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 description implies usage (converting a sketch into 3D geometry or cutting) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., the sketch must be closed or the part must be open). It provides context but no exclusions or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.