nx_revolve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: the operation is purely additive (no unite/subtract), it requires a closed sketch section, and the axis is defined in sketch XY space. It does not state whether the source sketch is consumed/modified, what happens on failure, or whether the sketch must be currently active — significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentences plus a parameter note, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the most important constraint. No filler; the only minor redundancy is restating the axis semantics that are close to self-evident from the parameter names.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the axis/angle semantics are covered. However, for a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the undocumented `reverse` flag and the effect on the source sketch leave the definition short of fully self-sufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for axis_start/axis_end ('sketch XY coordinates defining the revolution axis') and for angle (degrees, 0 < angle <= 360), but leaves `reverse` and `sketch_id` entirely undocumented beyond their names, so roughly half the parameters remain opaque.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Revolve a closed sketch section around an in-sketch 2D axis'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from additive operations like nx_extrude. It also scopes the result ('Creates a new solid only'), but never names a sibling tool or contrasts itself with nx_extrude where an agent might plausibly hesitate.

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?

It states a real constraint — 'Creates a new solid only (no unite/subtract)' — which tells the agent not to expect boolean behavior, implying a follow-up nx_unite would be needed. Beyond that it gives no when-to-use guidance versus nx_extrude or any prerequisite about the sketch being finished/closed.

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