Revolve a sketch

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

The description discloses one useful, non-obvious behavior: if no axis is supplied, the sketch's own construction line is used; otherwise axis_ids or an axis query must be passed. However, annotations provide no readOnly/destructive hints, and the description never states that this is a document-modifying feature or what the operation produces/side effects. Some behavioral context is added, but the mutation implications are left implicit.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the core purpose is front-loaded, and the optional-axis behavior follows in a structured parenthetical with a useful sibling cross-reference. Every clause earns its place and the description is easy to scan for an agent.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and only a title annotation, the single behavioral sentence plus axis note is thin. The schema covers all parameter semantics, but the description does not mention that the tool mutates the document, what the return/result looks like, or prerequisites such as a closed sketch profile. A mutating feature with no safety annotations needs a bit more context than this.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the axis fallback rule ('the sketch's own construction line is used') and the two ways to specify an axis ('axis_ids or an axis query'). It also clarifies that the sketch parameter refers to the profile being revolved, adding semantic value beyond the terse schema field descriptions.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Revolve' and the resource 'a sketch profile around an axis,' clearly naming the operation and its target. It also distinguishes itself from modeling siblings like extrude/sweep by emphasizing rotational geometry and axis handling. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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 revolve rather than extrude, sweep, or other solid-modeling alternatives. The only conditionals address axis handling within the tool ('with no axis given' vs 'otherwise pass axis_ids'), not when to select this tool. The cross-reference to onshape_sketch_circle_axis helps prepare an axis but does not substitute for tool-selection guidance.

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