add_revolved_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the profile is auto-closed, that it is spun by angle_deg (default 360°), that r=0 yields a solid while offset yields a ring/torus, and that the profile may not cross the axis. It also notes the return of mass properties and the prerequisite of new_part. This is rich behavioral context for a modeling operation.

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 concise yet comprehensive, structured as a lead sentence followed by focused paragraphs on the profile format and behavioral constraints. Every sentence adds value—no fluff. The key purpose is front-loaded, and the prerequisite and return info are placed logically. It achieves completeness without verbosity.

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 revolve tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: geometry, parameter formats, constraints (may not cross axis), behavior (auto-close, angle), return value (mass properties), and prerequisite (new_part). An agent has everything needed to call it correctly. The only minor omission is the name parameter, but that's a non-essential default.

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 explain the parameters entirely. It thoroughly defines profile_mm with units, coordinate meaning (r = distance from axis, z = position along axis), and auto-closing behavior. It also explains angle_deg with its default. The name parameter is trivial and not explicitly covered, but the core parameters are fully clarified beyond the raw schema.

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 a clear statement of the action ('Revolve a closed (radius, height) profile about the axis at radius 0') and specifies the resource (a profile) and axis. It distinguishes itself from extrusion and simple primitive tools by explaining the revolve concept and the effect of profile offset (solid vs ring/torus), making it easy for an agent to select this tool over siblings like add_extruded_profile or add_cylinder.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use new_part first' indicates a prerequisite, and the explanation of r=0 vs offset profiles tells the agent when this tool is appropriate for solid shafts/vases vs rings/toruses. It does not explicitly list alternative tools or when not to use it, but the behavioral distinctions from extrusion are clear enough to guide selection.

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