sw_extrude

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it delivers real behavioral detail: units are mm, extrusion grows +Z from z0 to z1, the z1 < z0 case inverts direction, and cut=true switches from additive to subtractive. It does not mention document mutation side effects, undo, or rebuild requirements, but the core geometry behavior and the add/cut distinction are 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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation and units, then geometry direction, then the cut modifier. No filler, and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers units, direction, inversion, and cut semantics well. It leaves the role of merge, name, and plane to the schema, which is acceptable given 75% coverage, though it could have noted the tool rebuilds/modifies the active document.

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 75%, so the schema already documents profile, plane, z0/z1 and through. The description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema lacks: the +Z growth direction, the z0 >= 0 constraint, the inversion rule when z1 < z0, and what cut=true means. This meaningfully exceeds the per-field descriptions.

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 (combine sketch + extrusion in one step) and scopes it to the active document. No sibling covers extrusion, so it does not need to disambiguate against sw_new_part or the sw_api_* tools. An agent immediately knows a profile geometry becomes an extruded feature.

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?

It implies the case for use ('en un solo paso') and the cut=true alternative for material removal, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not or a pointer to any alternative approach (e.g., scripting via sw_execute_script). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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