patch_surfaceCreates a surface from sketch boundary edges with connected, tangent, or curvature continuity. Use to fill openings or generate surfaces from closed profiles.
Create a patch surface from boundary edges
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| continuity | No | connected | |
| sketch_name | Yes | Sketch with boundary curves | |
| profile_index | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It doesn't explain what 'patch surface' means in terms of output (e.g., a new surface entity), potential side effects, or error conditions, so it relies heavily on annotations without enhancing understanding.
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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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 the tool's complexity (creating a geometric surface), lack of output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the result (e.g., what a 'patch surface' is), usage constraints, or how it fits with other modeling operations, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke it correctly.
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 low at 33%, with only 'sketch_name' documented. The description mentions 'boundary edges' but doesn't clarify how parameters like 'profile_index' or 'continuity' relate to creating the patch, leaving key semantics unexplained and failing to compensate for the schema's gaps.
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 action ('create a patch surface') and the resource ('from boundary edges'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'loft', 'sweep', or 'ruled_surface', which might also create surfaces from curves, so it misses full sibling distinction.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a sketch with closed boundary curves) or compare to other surface-creation tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent to guess based on context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.