fusion_extrude

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

Annotations provide the read-only and destructive hints, but the description itself adds little behavioral context. It does not explain that extrusion creates or modifies a 3D body, that a cut operation removes material, or what happens to the original sketch. The listed operation/direction values mostly repeat the input schema's enum rather than revealing behavior.

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 extremely compact, with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the main action and then packs the key parameter semantics into two short clauses, making it easy to scan.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and no schema-level descriptions, the description is too incomplete for safe autonomous use. It omits return values, prerequisites like an active sketch, whether the operation creates a new body or modifies the existing one, and how profile indices are resolved.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the distance unit (mm), profile as an index or 'all', and enumerating direction and operation choices. However, the required 'sketch' parameter is not directly explained, and the precise meaning of profile indexing remains ambiguous.

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 tool's verb and resource: extrude a sketch profile by a distance in mm. It lists operation, direction, and profile options, making the core purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related modeling tools like revolve, sweep, or loft, though the name and action make the distinction mostly implicit.

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 versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites such as requiring an active sketch or component. The description only enumerates parameter options, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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