revolve_cut

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the subtractive nature and return type (CortarRevolución, type='cut_revolve'), but lacks disclosure of prerequisites (closed sketch, axis existence), errors, or side effects.

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 front-loaded with purpose and use cases, then parameter details, then a concrete example. Could be slightly more concise but the structure is logical.

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?

Despite no output schema, description covers usage, parameters, return type, and provides a detailed example. It gives domain context for autoparts, making it complete for a moderate-complexity tool.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains axis_name as from create_reference_axis with same constraints, angle_deg as sweep range (0,360] with default 360 and typical full-circle use, and reverse_direction as sense flip. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 it is a subtractive revolve operation, explicitly distinguishing it from revolve_sketch as its mirror. It provides specific autoparts use cases (O-ring grooves, retaining-ring grooves) and contrasts with sibling tools like extrude_cut and sweep_cut.

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 gives concrete examples of when to use (autoparts grooves) and notes it's the subtractive counterpart of revolve_sketch. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like extrude_cut or sweep_cut.

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