poly_extrude_faces

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral context: positive amounts extrude outward, negative amounts dig inward, and direction can override the default normal. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining how the destructive behavior manifests.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action. The bilingual duplication is somewhat redundant but likely intentional for accessibility, and no unnecessary filler is present.

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 destructive poly-modeling operation, the description covers the key behaviors and parameter options well. It does not mention prerequisites like needing an Editable Poly object, but the tool name and schema largely compensate, and annotations cover the destructive nature.

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 already documents all four parameters. The description adds some idiomatic meaning, such as '挖洞' for inward extrusion, but mostly restates what the schema already says about amount, faces, and direction.

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 operation: extruding selected faces along their normals. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like poly_extrude_edges by specifying 'faces' as the resource, and the sign/direction semantics make the purpose unmistakable.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as poly_bevel_faces or poly_inset_faces. The only contextual advice is about omitting the faces parameter, which is parameter behavior rather than tool-selection guidance.

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