Revolve a planar wire profile around a world-space axis to generate 3D geometry. Axis origin in millimeters, angle in positive degrees.
Revolve a planar Wire profile around a world-space axis. Axis origin is millimeters and the positive angle is degrees.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| axis | Yes | ||
| intent | No | ||
| revision | Yes | ||
| angleDegrees | Yes | ||
| axisOriginMm | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the axis is world-space (not workplane-relative) and the origin units are millimeters with positive angles in degrees. It still omits whether the source profile is consumed or preserved and what geometry is produced.
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 dense sentences with nothing wasted, front-loading the operation and following with unit conventions. Every clause earns its place.
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 geometry-creating tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin: it never says what object results, whether the input Wire survives, or what revision/id refer to. An agent lacks enough to invoke this 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 description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry the load and it only clarifies two of them: axisOriginMm (millimeters) and angleDegrees (degrees, positive). The critical id, revision, intent, and axis vector parameters are left completely undocumented in both schema and description.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Revolve a planar Wire profile around a world-space axis.' An agent can distinguish this from extrusion/sweep/loft siblings by the revolve operation and the Wire-profile input requirement. It does not name or contrast any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as plasticity_extrude_profile, plasticity_sweep_regions, or plasticity_loft_curves, nor any prerequisite (e.g. that a planar closed Wire must already exist). Usage must be inferred entirely from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.