extrudeFaces

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions might be required, whether it modifies existing geometry or creates new elements, or what happens to adjacent faces. The description provides zero behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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?

While technically concise with just two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't front-load important information and fails to provide any meaningful context. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide sufficient value.

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 complex 3D modeling operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what extrusion means in this context, what the tool returns, how it affects the scene, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema and guesswork about this geometric operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'items' and its nested properties comprehensively. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Extrude faces' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful context. It doesn't specify what extrusion means in this context, what resource it operates on (e.g., 3D mesh faces), or how it differs from sibling tools like 'createFaces' or 'updateFaces'. While the name suggests a 3D modeling operation, the description provides no additional clarity.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison to sibling tools like 'createFaces', 'updateFaces', or other mesh manipulation tools. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.

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