build_revolved_profile

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

The description outlines the steps (creates axis, builds closed profile, revolves) and mentions the 'safe chain' concept, but does not clarify potential side effects (e.g., whether existing geometry is modified) or any required permissions. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden, and while it gives some behavioral insight, gaps remain.

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 concise at four sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds meaningful information (steps, usage context, capability). No unnecessary words.

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 (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameter formats, return values, error conditions, and how it integrates with the overall part model. The agent would struggle to invoke this tool reliably without additional knowledge.

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?

The input schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the tool description only mentions 'segments' and 'variables' indirectly. It does not explain the format of the required 'segments' array, the meaning of 'plane', 'angle_deg', 'axis_reference_1/2', or other parameters. This is a critical gap for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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 clearly states the tool builds an axisymmetric profile via a safe chain, specifying it for turned parts with ordered line/arc segments. It differentiates from siblings like build_closed_profile or revolve_sketch by calling itself the 'preferred path' for this specific use case.

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 indicates when to use the tool ('preferred path for turned parts...') and mentions variable expressions for variants, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, which could leave ambiguity for an AI agent.

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