ruled_surfaceCreate a ruled surface from an edge or sketch curve in Fusion 360. Set distance and normal or tangent rule type for CAD modeling.
Create a ruled surface from an edge or sketch curve
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| distance | No | Ruled surface distance (cm) | |
| body_name | Yes | ||
| rule_type | No | normal | |
| edge_index | Yes |
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-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, implying it creates new geometry without deleting existing data. The description adds context by specifying the source ('edge or sketch curve'), but does not disclose further behavioral traits like error conditions, performance, or output format, relying on annotations for basic safety.
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, efficiently stating the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the complexity, earning full marks for brevity and clarity.
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 geometry with 4 parameters), lack of output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the result (e.g., type of surface created), error handling, or practical usage scenarios, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
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 25%, with only the 'distance' parameter documented. The description mentions 'edge or sketch curve', which loosely relates to 'body_name' and 'edge_index', but does not clarify parameter meanings, formats, or interactions beyond the schema, resulting in minimal added value.
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 ruled surface') and the resource ('from an edge or sketch curve'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'loft', 'sweep', or 'extrude' that also create surfaces, missing explicit differentiation.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as for generating surfaces along curves compared to other surface creation methods. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or named alternatives, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.