poly_extrude_edges

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is covered. The description adds that extrusion happens along edge normals and creates strip geometry, but it does not disclose effects on topology, reversibility, or prerequisites. This is acceptable but not rich.

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?

Two compact bilingual sentences deliver the core behavior and examples without filler. The action and result are front-loaded, and the bilingual format is justified by the multilingual audience.

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?

Combined with the fully described input schema and destructive annotation, the description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. It does not mention required object state (e.g., Editable Poly) or return values, but those gaps are moderate given the tool's narrow scope and no output schema.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents edges, amount, objects, and direction. The description only restates that amount controls height, adding no meaningful semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Extrude edges along their normals, producing strip geometry (e.g. skirting, borders)'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like poly_extrude_faces and poly_bevel_edges by naming the geometry type and result.

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 gives clear use cases ('skirting, borders') and explains that the result is strip geometry, which implies when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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