revolve_cut

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

Despite no annotations, description discloses that it removes material (subtractive), gives parameter constraints (axis_name same as revolve_sketch, angle_deg range, reverse_direction), return type, and an example. Does not cover error conditions or prerequisites in depth, but adequate for a straightforward cutting tool.

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?

Description is concise (~120 words), well-structured with title, explanation, use cases, parameter list, return type, and example. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

Covers input constraints, use cases, example, and return type. References sibling revolve_sketch for axis constraints. Does not explicitly require an active closed sketch, but example implies it. Adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description adds significant meaning: axis_name must come from create_reference_axis, angle_deg range (0,360] with default 360 and typical full-circle use, and reverse_direction flips sense. Example further clarifies usage.

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 removes material by sweeping a closed sketch profile around an axis, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from revolve_sketch by noting it is subtractive.

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?

Provides specific autoparts use cases (O-ring grooves, retaining-ring grooves, etc.) and notes it is a mirror of revolve_sketch but subtractive. Could be improved by stating when not to use or comparing to alternatives like extrude_cut, but sufficient for domain context.

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