creo_create_safe_revolve_copy

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

Annotations are all false and carry little positive safety information, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses several non-obvious behaviors: the work happens on a new copy, overwrites are refused, an active feature is required, and a solid-volume change is verified. Failure-behavior details are not described, but the safety-critical traits are present.

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 information-dense sentence with no filler. Every clause adds either purpose, mode support, or a behavioral constraint, and the core purpose appears first.

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 10-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is largely complete: it explains what is created, supported modes, key prerequisites, overwrite behavior, and validation. It does not specify the exact return value or failure messages, but the behavior is understandable enough for correct invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 50%, the description compensates well by relating operation_mode to add/cut, feature_name to the required active feature, the rectangular radial section to axial_width/inner_radius/radial_thickness, and copy semantics to expected_model/copy_name. direction_side remains only an enum in the schema and is not explained in the description, but the full-360 nature makes it less critical.

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 names a specific action (copy current part and create a 360-degree solid revolve), a specific section shape (closed rectangular radial section), and the target (new copy). This distinguishes it from sibling safe-copy tools such as rectangle extrusion, cut, and round copies without ambiguity.

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 context for when to invoke it: it applies when a full 360-degree revolve with a rectangular radial section is desired, in additive or cut mode. It also states a prerequisite (active feature) and a limitation (refuses overwrite), though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for when another feature type is needed.

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