sketch_extrude

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description need not carry the full safety burden. It adds that the result is a solid, but does not disclose that 'add' or 'cut' require targets or that 'cut' subtracts from every target—behavioral context that would help an agent avoid mis-invocation. With annotations already covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the core action and free of filler. It is appropriately sized for a high-level summary, though its brevity is also the source of missing usage guidance.

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?

This is a complex CAD operation with 7 parameters, multiple shape types, three operation modes, and optional target bodies. The description explains only the broad sketch-and-extrude concept and leaves out how 'add'/'cut' interact with targets, what happens if required parameters are missing, or how to choose between a principal plane and a face. Even with a rich schema and an output schema, the description is too thin to fully orient an agent for correct 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 57%, so the schema already documents many parameters including the rich shape and plane definitions. The description adds only that sketching can occur on a plane or planar face, implicitly mapping to the 'plane' parameter, but says nothing about 'name', 'distance', 'targets', or 'operation'. Baseline 3 when schema does substantial work.

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 pair ('sketch 2D shapes ... and extrude them into a solid') and resource, making the tool's core purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools like revolve_sketch or create_box, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 mentions 'plane or planar face' as a sketching context, but gives no guidance on when to use this versus revolve_sketch, create_box, or boolean. It also omits any mention of the operation modes ('new', 'add', 'cut') that are central to deciding how to invoke the tool.

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