revolve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose key geometric behavior and a failure constraint, but it does not state that this creates/modifies a solid body, requires an existing document and sketch, or explain the roles of result_name and material.

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 definition is front-loaded and tight: two sentences plus a short example. Every sentence adds useful operational information with 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?

The core operation, axis semantics, angle semantics, and profile constraint are present, and the output schema covers return values. However, for a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, several parameters and mutation behaviors remain undocumented.

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. It clarifies axis_point and axis_dir as point plus direction and references angle_deg, including an example axis_dir, but it leaves doc, sketch, material, and the required result_name 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?

The description names a specific CAD verb and resource: revolve a sketch's closed profile about a world-space axis by angle_deg. It is clear enough to separate the operation from generic modeling tools, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings such as extrude, sweep, 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?

It gives a concrete applicability constraint (the profile must not cross the axis) and a useful example (shaft profile in an XY sketch with axis_dir [1,0,0]). It does not state when to choose revolve over alternatives such as extrude or sweep, but the operating context is clear.

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