create_revolve

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It describes basic functionality but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, error handling, or whether the operation is destructive or reversible. The presence of additionalProperties: true on the input object is not explained.

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?

Two sentences with a clear front-loaded action statement followed by a concise list of supported capabilities. Every word adds value; no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple parameters, output schema present), the description covers core capabilities well. It mentions key features (thin, bidirectional) but omits prerequisites like requirement for an active sketch and axis entity. Still informative enough for basic understanding.

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 has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds overarching context about revolution but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. No new meaning added for parameters like direction, merge_result, or thin_thickness.

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?

Description clearly states the tool creates a revolve feature from an active sketch, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from other feature creation tools like extrusion or sweep by naming the operation and detailing supported variations (full/partial, thin features, bidirectional).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use revolve versus alternatives like extrusion or sweep. Only implicit context that it requires an active sketch. Lacks comparison to sibling tools or conditions under which revolve is preferred.

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