create_revolve

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic creation action and does not mention prerequisites like an existing sketch, the effect of operationType (NEW/ADD/REMOVE/INTERSECT) on geometry, or possible failure conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words: 'Create a revolve feature' comes first, followed by the mechanism. It is concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of omitting important usage and behavioral context.

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?

With 8 parameters, 4 required inputs, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly in all cases. The schema documents parameters, but the description does not explain preconditions, operation type behavior, or how this feature interacts with existing geometry.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond reinforcing that a sketch is rotated around an axis, but it does not need to compensate because the schema handles the details.

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 a specific verb ('Create'), a specific resource ('a revolve feature'), and the defining mechanism ('rotating a sketch around an axis'). This distinguishes it from similar sibling tools like create_extrude and create_thicken, even without naming them.

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 phrase 'rotating a sketch around an axis' implies the intended use case and naturally separates it from extrusion or thickening. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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