revolve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects and constraints. It only lists parameter formats (axis, extent_kind, operation) but does not mention that the operation modifies the document, creates or deletes bodies, or if it's reversible. It also fails to describe error conditions (e.g., non-closed profile) or required permissions. This is inadequate for a mutation operation.

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 compact and to-the-point, using a concise format with parameter hints. Every line adds value: it explains the core action, lists valid axis options, extent kinds, and operations. There is no redundant filler, making it easily scannable for an agent.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It lacks essential information about return values, side effects, preconditions (e.g., a valid sketch selection), and common pitfalls. The description covers only a fraction of the parameter semantics and does not explain how the tool fits into a broader design workflow. The agent would often need to experiment to understand behavior.

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%, meaning the schema provides no explanatory text for parameters. The description gives hints for three parameters (axis, extent_kind, operation) but leaves six others (name, angle, is_symmetric, participants, profile_index) unexplained. It partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves significant ambiguity, especially for parameters like participants and profile_index, which have no guidance.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Revolve a sketch profile around an axis.' It specifies the verb (revolve), resource (sketch profile), and context (around an axis), which distinguishes it from sibling operations like extrude (linear extrusion) or mirror (reflection). The intent is immediately understandable.

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer revolve over extrude or other operations. It only hints at parameter choices (e.g., extent_kind values) but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., need a closed sketch) or typical use cases (e.g., creating rotational symmetric parts). This is a significant gap for an AI agent deciding tool selection.

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