build_revolved_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions a 'safe chain' and the steps involved, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects. It adds useful context about string expressions in coordinates but is not comprehensive.

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 4 sentences, each adding value. It front-loads the main purpose, then provides usage context and a noteworthy feature (string expressions). No extraneous information.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers only purpose and two parameters, leaving many behavioral and parameter details unaddressed, which is inadequate for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 0%. The description adds meaning to 'segments' (ordered line/arc) and 'variables' (string expressions), but does not explain parameters like exact, merge, plane, angle_deg, or axis references. It compensates partially but not enough for 9 parameters.

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 by creating a reference axis, closed profile, and revolving. It explicitly distinguishes this as the preferred path for turned parts with known ordered segments, differentiating it from siblings like revolve_sketch and build_closed_profile.

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 provides a clear context for when to use: 'for turned parts where the sketch profile is already known as ordered line/arc segments.' It implies this is the recommended approach but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools.

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