mdpa_extrude

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses that triangles become 3D6N prisms, quads become 3D8N hexahedra, 2-node conditions become 3D4N surface quads, and that cap conditions land on new zmin/zmax sub model parts. It omits permission/overwrite side effects, but the transformation semantics are unusually well disclosed.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose, then proceeds through type mapping, cap conditions, and part carry-over in a logical order. Given the richness of behavior covered, nearly every sentence earns its place.

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 values need no explanation, and the description adequately covers the complex transformation semantics. The main gap is the unmentioned overwrite behavior, which matters for a tool that writes to an output path.

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% across 8 params, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains heights (layer thicknesses), z0 (starting level), and the element_names/condition_names/cap_condition_names mapping semantics, but leaves path, output details, and especially overwrite 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 precise verb+resource+scope: 'Extrude a planar (xy) mesh along z into a 3D mesh written to output.' The dimensional transformation (2D->3D along z) clearly differentiates it from siblings like mdpa_transform or mdpa_create_geometry_mesh.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation itself (extruding a planar xy mesh), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many mdpa_* mesh tools. The agent must infer applicability from the verb rather than from stated conditions.

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