revolve

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent), so the description is free to add the implicitly stateful 'last sketch' scope and the material-removal semantics of cut=True — both are genuinely useful and not in the structured fields. Minor residual: no mention that angle defaults to a full 360 revolve and that results are appended as a new feature, so it doesn't fully explain effects.

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, front-loaded with the core action and its precondition, then the one non-obvious flag. No filler and nothing redundant with 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation; the schema documents angle bounds; the description covers the stateful precondition and the undocumented cut flag. For a 2-parameter feature-creation tool this is sufficient to call it correctly.

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 coverage is only 50% (cut has no description), and the description compensates by explaining that cut=True removes material rather than adding it — the single most important semantic for that flag. angle_deg is already documented in the schema with bounds, so nothing further is required there.

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 and resource (revolve the last sketch) plus the geometric precondition (a construction line inside that sketch). It is clearly distinguishable from sweep/loft/extrude siblings by name and operation, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Gives real prerequisites: the sketch must be the last one and must contain a construction line, with the exact recipe (sketch_line construction=True) for satisfying that. It also explains the cut=True mode. What's missing is any explicit guidance on when to use revolve vs sweep/loft or when cut mode is preferred.

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