Shape add revolve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail (revolution about the z axis, top-to-bottom profile ordering, radius constraint), but says nothing about which document/item the result is attached to or whether the operation is reversible via shape_undo.

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?

Extremely dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then the profile format and defaults. Every clause earns its place, though the terse 'points=[[radius,z],...]' notation is compressed enough to require careful parsing.

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 an 8-parameter shape-creation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description addresses purpose and one parameter but omits what document the shape is added to, the meanings of at/segments/rotate_deg/surf_id/name/color, and any return information. It is too thin for the tool's complexity.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the burden and it does document the most important one: points=[[radius,z],...] with radius>=0 and top-to-bottom ordering, plus the angle_deg=360 default. However, six parameters (at, name, color, surf_id, segments, rotate_deg) 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?

States a specific verb (revolve) and resource (a half-profile around the z axis), and anchors it with the 'like FreeCAD Revolution' analogy, so an agent can distinguish it from primitive adds like shape_add_cylinder. It does not, however, explicitly contrast it with the closest sibling, shape_extrude_sketch, which is the other profile-driven shape generator.

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 geometry description implies the use case (building a revolved solid from a profile), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, no mention of requiring an active document, and no routing to alternative tools such as shape_extrude_sketch or shape_push_pull.

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