Fusion360 MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It implies a 3D modeling operation that creates geometry but doesn't specify effects like whether it modifies existing bodies or creates new ones, or any constraints like requiring a valid sketch. No contradiction with annotations.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (9 parameters, CAD operation), lack of output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how errors might occur, or provide enough context for safe invocation in a 3D modeling environment.

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 description coverage and 9 parameters, the description provides no additional meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'angle' and 'axis' but doesn't explain what 'profile_index' refers to, the coordinate system for axis origins/directions, or the implications of the 'operation' enum values, leaving significant gaps.

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 action ('revolve') and target ('a sketch profile around an axis'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'extrude', 'sweep', or 'circular_pattern' which might also involve rotational operations, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing sketch profile), exclusions, or compare to similar tools like 'sweep' or 'circular_pattern' in the sibling list.

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