fusion_revolve

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the document), potential errors (invalid profile, degenerate axis), or the nature of the operation (e.g., whether it creates a new body or cuts). The available parameters (operation, target_body_id) hint at such behaviors, but the description does not elaborate.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the core functionality without extraneous words. It is well-structured and easy to read, with no redundancy or ambiguity in phrasing.

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?

The tool is moderately complex, involving a revolve operation with multiple parameters (angle, operation, target body). The description only covers the basic revolve action and axis definition, omitting details about how parameters affect the outcome, what the operation does (e.g., cut vs. join), and what the tool returns. Without additional context, a user may not fully understand how to use the tool correctly.

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?

The schema provides parameter names but no descriptions. The description adds some context for axis_start and axis_end (two 2D points in the sketch's coordinate system) and mentions units (mm), but it does not explain other parameters like profile_index, angle_deg, operation, or target_body_id. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate more, but it only partially clarifies the axis parameters.

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: revolving a sketch profile around an axis defined by two points in the sketch's coordinate system. It uses a specific verb ('Revolve') and specifies the resource ('sketch profile') and the axis definition, distinguishing it from other modeling tools like extrusion or 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?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid sketch with a closed profile), typical use cases, or comparison with similar tools like fusion_extrude. Users are left to infer when a revolve is appropriate.

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