create_revolution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and says nothing about whether this is a mutation, whether it consumes or requires an existing profile, what 'simplified' means (e.g. no self-intersection handling), or whether the axis must be coplanar with the profile. A creation tool with zero annotation coverage needs more than a single sentence.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of the definition's gaps rather than a virtue of restraint.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, a nested axis object, and an angle parameter that changes the result shape, the description is far too thin. An agent knows what it creates but not the constraints, defaults, or consequences of 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate, yet it only loosely maps to profile_id and axis. The angle parameter (exclusiveMinimum 0, implying partial revolutions), unit enum, and layer are never mentioned, leaving meaningful behavior undocumented in both description and schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Create), a specific resource (revolved solid), and the construction method (from a 2D profile around an axis), which distinguishes it from primitive siblings like create_box, create_sphere, and create_cylinder. The word 'simplified' is unexplained but does not obscure the core purpose.

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 guidance on when to choose a revolution over siblings like create_cylinder, create_cone, or loft/sweep, which overlap in producing solids of revolution. No prerequisites such as whether profile_id must reference an existing closed profile, and no exclusions.

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