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 of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the operation is mutating ('Add or cut') and states a prerequisite, but it does not explain what happens with an invalid sketch, whether the active model is modified, or what the tool returns.

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 with no filler: it states the action first and the essential precondition second. It is appropriately concise, though slightly terse.

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 a nested RevolutionSpec with five fields, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-sentence description is not complete enough. It omits document context, angle/reverse semantics, and guidance distinguishing this rotational feature tool from extrude or other feature-creation siblings.

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 indirectly clarifies that sketch_id must reference a sketch with a profile and construction axis, and that operation corresponds to add/cut. It adds no meaning for document_id, angle, reverse, or name, leaving most parameters dependent on raw schema structure.

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 clear action ('Add or cut') and a specific resource ('a revolution'), and it adds the key precondition that the sketch must contain a profile and construction axis. This is enough to understand the tool's core purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like extrude.

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 an important usage condition: the sketch must contain a profile and a construction axis. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over sibling alternatives such as extrude, nor does it mention any exclusion cases.

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