Sketch a circle with a revolve axis

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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Add a sketch' implies a document mutation, but the description does not disclose that this modifies the document, whether it validates/regenerates features, or what side effects occur. No conflict with annotations exists, but transparency is thin.

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 no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by explaining why the construction line matters and what kind of result this enables.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description explains the overall intent but does not address coordinate semantics, plane choice, validation behavior, or the relationship between the parameters. The rich schema covers invocation details, so this is adequate but not complete.

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 parameters are fully documented in structured form. The description adds the conceptual link between the construction line and axis_start/axis_end, but this is not enough to exceed the baseline of 3.

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 tool adds a sketch with a circle profile and a construction line, naming the revolve axis as its distinguishing resource. It differentiates from onshape_sketch_circle by mentioning the line and the revolve workflow, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 gives implied usage context: it explains that onshape_revolve spins the profile around the construction line to create a torus or ring. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over onshape_sketch_circle or onshape_create_sketch, nor does it list exclusions.

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