f360_revolve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses prerequisites (a closed profile, situated on one side of the chosen axis) and what is produced (a solid body). It does not cover failure modes (e.g., profile crossing the axis) or whether the source sketch is consumed.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation, then the call-order note, then per-parameter clarifications, then the geometric precondition. Every sentence adds distinct information with no repetition.

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 two-parameter constructive tool with no output schema, this covers what to call it on, how to choose the axis, what the angle means, and the key geometric constraint. Only error/failure behavior and the fate of the source sketch are left unstated.

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 already 100%, so the description only needs to add value, and it does: it explains that X is lathe-style rotation and most common for symmetric parts, and that angle_deg below 360 produces a partial arc rather than a full solid. The 'profile on one side of the axis' constraint also gives operational meaning the schema lacks.

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 (revolves) and resource (most recently created sketch profile) plus the result (solid body of revolution) and concrete part examples (shaft, flange, boss, cup). This clearly distinguishes it from f360_extrude, its nearest sibling, without naming it.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing: 'Call after f360_draw_rectangle or any closed sketch profile,' which tells the agent the prerequisite state. It doesn't explicitly contrast with f360_extrude, so the agent must infer which operation to choose when both are possible.

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