Create a cylinder by revolving a profile 360° about an axis, returning volume mass properties. Use after creating a new document to build a parametric SolidWorks part.
Create a cylinder by revolving a profile 360° about an axis.
The first revolve-based primitive. Returns the resulting mass properties (volume = π · r² · h). Use new_document first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Revolve | |
| height_mm | Yes | ||
| diameter_mm | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.16.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral burden: it discloses a prerequisite (new_document) and claims the return includes mass properties. It omits what document/body the feature lands in, whether the axis/orientation is fixed, and whether it errors without an active document, so the disclosure is partial.
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?
Very short and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence and the prerequisite last. The line 'The first revolve-based primitive' is trivia that earns little place, but the padding is minor.
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 mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is thin: no units semantics beyond suffixes, no document-state requirement details, no indication of what the volume/mass claim implies versus the separate get_mass_properties tool.
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%, so the description must explain all three parameters. It implies height via 'h' and radius via 'r', but the required input is diameter_mm, and the description never reconciles diameter with the radius in the volume formula; the 'name' parameter (default 'Revolve') is entirely unexplained.
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 plus the construction method ('Create a cylinder by revolving a profile 360° about an axis'), which helps distinguish it from add_disc or add_cone. The sibling set is large but the geometry description is enough to distinguish it from add_extruded_profile or add_loft.
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 one explicit prerequisite ('Use new_document first'), which is genuinely useful. However, it never says when to pick this over add_disc/add_cone or the generic add_revolved_profile, so the agent must infer alternatives from names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.