spin_mesh

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions duplicating and rotating geometry but does not clarify whether the original mesh is modified or a new object is created. It also lacks discussion of reversibility, permissions, or potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a geometry creation tool.

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 concise (4 sentences + structured Args/Returns) with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds value. The formatting is clean and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns confirmation dict'), the description covers the parameters well but omits critical behavior details like whether the operation is destructive or creates a new object. This hole reduces completeness; a more thorough description would address these points.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds valuable meaning to all 5 parameters: it specifies ranges for angle (-6.283 to 6.283) and steps (1-1000), explains axis default (Z-up) and center default (origin), and clarifies that object_name is required. This goes well beyond the schema which only provides titles and defaults.

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?

Description clearly states the tool 'spins (lathes) mesh geometry around an axis' and gives concrete examples like vases, columns, or wheels, making the purpose unmistakable. No similar tool among siblings (e.g., no other spin or lathe tool), so it's well-distinguished.

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 provides context by stating it's 'great for creating round shapes', implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling tools list is large and no direct alternative spin tool exists, so the guidance is adequate but not exhaustive.

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