revolve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions revolving a sketch but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it creates a new body, modifies an existing one, requires a closed sketch, or what happens with self-intersections. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 that efficiently conveys the core operation without unnecessary words.

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 five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits key details about required inputs (sketch), optional parameters (name, reversed), and behavioral aspects like whether it creates a new feature or modifies the document. More context is needed for correct invocation.

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%, and the description only covers two parameters (axis and angle) out of five. It says nothing about sketch, name, or reversed. While it clarifies that axis expects 'X', 'Y', or 'Z', the schema already provides those as strings (though without enum). The description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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) and resource (a sketch around an axis), and specifies the axis options ('X'|'Y'|'Z') and the angle parameter. This distinguishes it from siblings like sweep or pad, but it doesn't explicitly name the sibling differences.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sweep, loft, or pad. The context of creating a revolved feature is implied, but there are no explicit conditions or exclusions.

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