sw_extrude

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only but non-destructive mutation. The description adds one genuine behavioral trait: thin_thickness turns open sketches into walls, which tells the agent open profiles are legal only in thin mode. It says nothing about failure modes for closed-profile-only conditions or whether a rebuild is needed.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the primary action is front-loaded before the conditional thin-wall caveat. Nothing redundant with structured fields.

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?

For a 10-parameter mutation tool with 90% schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is what happens on failure or what a caller gets back, which is minor at this coverage level.

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 coverage is 90%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter including end_condition's enum and depth units. The description only adds meaning for thin_thickness (open sketches become walls); it says nothing extra about start_offset, second_depth, reverse, or how end_condition pairs with depth.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Extrude a sketch into a solid (boss)'. The word 'boss' implies additive material, which implicitly distinguishes it from sw_cut_extrude, but the sibling is never named, so the agent must infer the routing.

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 via the object it acts on (a sketch) and the payoff (a solid). There is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus sw_revolve, sw_cut_extrude, sw_thicken or sw_shell, and no stated prerequisites such as requiring an active document or a closed profile.

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