rhino_create_revolve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so mutation is known. The description adds that the tool creates a new surface by revolving a profile, which clarifies the effect. It does not mention side effects like whether the original curve is modified, but given annotations cover mutation, this added context is adequate.

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, front-loaded with the operation and then use cases. No wasted words. Every sentence adds valuable context.

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?

The description is sufficient for a creation tool with an output schema. It covers the purpose and typical uses. It does not state prerequisites like the profile curve must be planar or how the axis direction is determined, but these are inferable from the operation and schema. The agent can rely on the schema for parameter details.

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?

The schema itself provides descriptions for all parameters (curve_guid, axis_start, axis_end, start_angle, end_angle, etc.), giving high coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already explains, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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'), the resource ('profile curve') and the output ('surface of revolution'). It adds typical use cases (vases, goblets, turned parts) which clearly differentiate it from sibling tools like rhino_create_loft or rhino_create_sweep1.

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 clear context for when to use (creating surfaces of revolution) and provides examples of use cases. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when not to use, such as when a loft or sweep would be more appropriate. It lacks explicit exclusions.

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