revolve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it explains that operation can join, cut, intersect, or create new geometry, and it warns that the profile must be on one side of the axis. It does not describe error handling or transactional behavior, but for a CAD lattice operation this is a solid disclosure.

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 front-loaded with purpose and then structured into workflows and argument notes. The examples are useful but make it somewhat long; however, every section contributes actionable guidance, so it remains efficient overall.

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 has an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers the key operational semantics, defaults, profile constraints, and workflows for a five-parameter CAD operation, making it complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without additional context.

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 only 20%, but the description compensates by explaining angle as degrees with default 360, axis as X/Y/Z with default Y, sketch_index 0 meaning latest, and operation meanings for join/cut/intersect/new. The instance parameter is left to the schema, which already describes it, so the coverage gap is largely addressed.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Revolve a sketch profile around a work axis to create or cut 3D geometry." This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like extrude and sweep_rotation by naming the revolve operation and its create/cut outcomes.

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 provides explicit preferred workflows for both join and cut revolves, including sketch creation and profile shape, which tells the agent when and how to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when to prefer revolve over alternative tools like extrude or sweep_rotation, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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