solid_revolve

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries real weight and does add value: it names the concrete side effect (a 3DSOLID is created by rotation) and encodes preconditions the agent would otherwise discover only via failure. It is silent on transaction/undo requirements, whether the profile entity is consumed, and layer defaulting behavior.

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?

Three short labeled lines — purpose, side-effects, disambiguation — with the core operation front-loaded and zero filler. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 9-parameter mutation with an output schema and minimal annotations, the definition covers purpose, preconditions, and side effect adequately. Gaps remain around transaction handling, the source profile's fate, and layer defaulting, which matter for a modeling operation that other tools (transaction_begin, solid_boolean) can interact with.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantic constraints absent from the schema: the profile must be closed and planar, the axis must be non-degenerate, and the angle must be non-zero and bounded by ±360. It adds nothing about how to obtain profile_object_id or what layer defaults to.

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 (create an ACIS 3DSOLID) plus the mechanical operation (revolving a closed planar profile around a WCS axis), which is far more precise than the name alone. It does not explicitly name solid_extrude or solid_sweep as the alternatives it is distinguished from, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

'Use for axisymmetric shapes (shafts, pulleys)' gives a clear positive selection criterion, and the validity constraints (closed planar profile, non-degenerate axis, non-zero angle within ±360) tell the agent when the tool is applicable. It never states when-not to use it or which sibling to pick instead.

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