rhino_extrude_surface

Does 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 explains the three parameters but does not state whether the original surfaces are modified or kept, whether it works only on planar surfaces, what direction the extrusion goes, or whether it requires a pre-selection. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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 brief and front-loaded with a clear one-line summary followed by a compact argument list. The mention of 'controller' is unnecessary and not reflected in the schema, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

While the schema provides defaults and the output schema may describe return values, the description omits important operational details: how the extrusion direction is determined, whether the tool modifies existing surfaces or creates new ones, and how it differs from similar extrusion tools. The phantom 'controller' argument further weakens completeness.

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?

The schema properties have no descriptions, and the description compensates by explaining distance, both_sides, and solid. However, it also lists a 'controller' argument that is not present in the schema, which is confusing and slightly detracts from otherwise helpful parameter semantics.

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 ('Extrude') and resource ('selected surface(s)'), which makes the tool's primary function clear. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative like rhino_extrude_curve, but the resource is specific enough to separate it from curve-based extrusion tools.

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 phrase 'selected surface(s)' implies the tool operates on the current selection, providing some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over rhino_extrude or rhino_extrude_curve, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the selection.

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