sw_revolve

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden, and it adds nothing about behavior: no mention that it creates a new feature in the active document, no note that cut=true turns it into a material-removal operation, and no disclosure of constraints such as the 0–360 angle bound or what happens on an invalid profile.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and examples last; nothing is wasted. It is very terse for a modeling operation, but that is a completeness issue rather than 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 6-parameter geometry-creation tool with no output schema and only minimal annotations, the description is too thin: it does not state which document the feature lands in, what the return looks like (feature name/handle), or how errors (open profile, missing centerline) surface.

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?

At 67% schema coverage, the schema already documents cut, doc, name and sketch, and the description's phrase 'around its centerline' usefully reinforces that the sketch must contain the axis. However, the two bare parameters (angle, reverse) receive no clarification in either the schema or the description, so the description does not compensate for the gap.

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 names a specific verb (revolve) and resource (a profile around its centerline) and adds concrete part examples (shafts, discs, bottles, grooves) that make the resulting geometry unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with adjacent siblings such as sw_extrude, sw_sweep or sw_loft, so it stops short of a 5.

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 parenthetical examples imply the class of shapes this tool is for, which is useful implied guidance, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of sw_extrude/sw_sweep when…' statement and no prerequisites spelled out (e.g., a sketch with exactly one centerline must already exist).

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