fusion_extrude

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and openWorldHint=true (possible side effects). The description adds enumeration of operations (new/join/cut/intersect) and directions (positive/negative/symmetric), which implies behavioral consequences. However, it does not disclose whether the sketch is consumed, what happens to existing bodies, or any required permissions. With annotations providing some hints, the description adds moderate value.

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 two sentences: the first states the core action concisely, and the second lists parameter constraints. No redundant or extraneous text. Information is front-loaded.

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 CAD extrude operation with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers basic parameter constraints but lacks context about result behavior (e.g., which body/component the extruded profile becomes part of, assumptions about sketch type, or start conditions). It is minimally adequate but could be more thorough.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies acceptable values for 'profile' (index or 'all'), 'direction' (positive/negative/symmetric), and 'operation' (new/join/cut/intersect). However, 'sketch' and 'distance' lack elaboration beyond the schema. The description adds meaning for 3 of 5 parameters.

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?

Clearly states 'Extrude a sketch profile by distance mm', specifying the verb (extrude) and resource (sketch profile). It lists allowable values for operation, direction, and profile, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fusion_revolve or fusion_sweep.

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 possible parameter values but lacks guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. No prerequisites (e.g., requiring an existing sketch) or context for when to choose extrude versus other feature operations.

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