add_revolved_profile

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: auto-closure, default 360° sweep, the geometric consequence of touching vs. offset profiles (solid vs. ring), a hard validity constraint (profile may not cross the axis), a scoping caveat on corner_radii_mm, the fact it returns mass properties, and the new_document prerequisite. It omits body/merge behaviour and failure modes, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation, then immediately with the parametric mode split, then constraints and return value. Dense but every sentence adds information an agent could not get from the schema; no filler.

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 5-parameter geometry-creation call with zero annotations and no output schema, the description supplies coordinate conventions, defaults, validity constraints, the return value (mass properties) and the required predecessor tool. Remaining gaps are secondary: whether the result is a new body or merged, and what happens on invalid input.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it explains 4 of 5 parameters in substance: profile_mm's coordinate convention changes with axis_mm (r/z vs x/y), axis_mm's two-point line form and its freedom in position and angle, angle_deg's default, and corner_radii_mm's exclusion on axis points. Only `name` is undocumented, which keeps it off a 5.

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 a closed profile on the Front plane about an axis") plus the resulting geometry class, which distinguishes it from add_extruded_profile, add_swept_profile and the primitive add_cylinder/add_disc siblings. An agent knows exactly which feature this creates without opening the schema.

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 a hard prerequisite ("Use new_document first") and lays out the two mutually exclusive operating modes (no axis_mm = polar r/z profile about the Y axis; axis_mm = free [x,y] points with an arbitrary axis line), which is effectively when-to-use guidance for each branch. It stops short of naming an alternative tool and saying when not to use this one, so no 5.

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