revolveRotate a sketch around a body origin axis (X, Y, or Z) by a specified angle to create a 3D solid. Provide the sketch and optionally set axis, angle, and reversed direction to control the output.
Revolve a sketch around a body origin axis ('X'|'Y'|'Z') by angle deg.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| axis | No | Y | |
| name | No | Revolution | |
| angle | No | ||
| sketch | Yes | ||
| reversed | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds the useful constraint that the revolve is around a body origin axis and that the angle is in degrees, but it does not disclose side effects or prerequisites beyond that.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core operation, axis options, and angle unit efficiently.
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?
For a feature-creation tool with five parameters and no output schema, this description is too thin. An agent would not know what the sketch parameter expects, what 'reversed' does, or what the result of the operation is.
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%, so the description must compensate for five undocumented parameters. It only clarifies 'axis' and 'angle', leaving 'sketch', 'name', and 'reversed' unexplained.
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 states a specific verb ('Revolve'), resource ('a sketch'), and the key parameters (axis and angle). It clearly identifies this as a CAD revolve operation, distinct from sibling operations like pad, sweep, or loft.
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?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sweep or loft, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The only implied context is the operation name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.