nx_revolve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: the operation creates a new solid only and does not unite or subtract. It also specifies the angle range (0 < angle <= 360) and that the axis is defined in sketch XY coordinates. However, it does not mention what happens if the sketch is not closed, whether the operation is reversible, or what the output schema contains. Given the lack of annotations, this is a moderate score.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action and constraint. The second sentence adds essential parameter semantics and the angle range. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 tool has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. The description covers the core behavior, the axis definition, and the angle constraint. It does not mention prerequisites like having a closed sketch or an active sketch context, but the sibling tools (nx_create_sketch, nx_finish_sketch) imply the workflow. Given the complexity of a revolve operation, a brief note about the sketch being closed would improve completeness, but the current description is largely sufficient.

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 compensate. It does explain the meaning of axis_start, axis_end, and angle, which are the non-obvious parameters. It does not explain sketch_id or reverse, but sketch_id is self-explanatory and reverse is a common boolean flag. The description adds meaningful semantics for the most complex parameters, so it earns a 4.

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'), a specific resource ('a closed sketch section'), and a key constraint ('around an in-sketch 2D axis'). It also clarifies the operation mode ('Creates a new solid only (no unite/subtract)'), which distinguishes it from other modeling operations like nx_extrude or nx_unite. This is a clear, specific purpose statement.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to revolve a sketch section around an axis. It also explicitly states what it does NOT do ('no unite/subtract'), which helps an agent avoid using it when a boolean operation is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide a when-not-to-use list, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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