lathe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral traits: how a radius-0 profile yields a solid, how close=true closes the loop to produce a ring, and how angle<360 produces a wedge. It stops short of describing defaults for cap/segments/axis or whether it creates a new scene object, but the core operation semantics are unusually well 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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core operation before the profile format and the shape outcomes. The parenthetical shape examples (vase, donut, wedge) earn their place by anchoring abstract parameters to concrete results, with little waste.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the pivotal geometry but leaves cap, segments, axis, and at unexplained, so an agent cannot fully reason about the call. Adequate but with clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does document the most consequential parameters: the [radius, height] point format, close, and angle. However, at, axis, cap, segments, and name are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving half the surface 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Spin a profile around an axis') and immediately grounds it with the profile format, so an agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It does not explicitly contrast with nearby siblings like sweep, loft, or extrude_profile, which also turn profiles into solids, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 explains geometry outcomes (solid vs tube vs ring vs wedge) but never states when to choose lathe over sweep, loft, extrude_profile, or radial_array, nor any prerequisite for calling it. There is implied usage via shape examples but no explicit selection guidance.

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