catia_gsd_revolve

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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, not idempotent), so the description only needs to add context. It adds the useful unit clarification ('Angles in degrees'), but says nothing about failure modes (e.g., open profile), feature-tree placement, or whether the profile must be planar.

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 sentences, correctly front-loaded with the operation and followed by the unit caveat. Nothing is wasted, though the unit note duplicates the schema.

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 geometry operation with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it conveys the operation and units but omits return/naming behavior and any constraint on valid input geometry.

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 every parameter including the '(degrees)' units on angle1/angle2. The description's 'Angles in degrees' is redundant with the schema, so it neither compensates nor adds meaning.

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+resource ('revolve a profile curve around an axis line') and the resulting object ('surface of revolution'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling sweep/extrude operations. It does not, however, explicitly name those siblings to sharpen the distinction.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. An agent must infer from the name alone whether to pick this over catia_gsd_sweep or catia_gsd_extrude for a given geometry.

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