rhino_cmd_revolve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does explain the axis convention and the return shape ('status' and 'command' keys). It does not disclose whether the source profile is retained or consumed, what failure conditions look like, or how conflicting selected axis points are handled relative to the assumed World Z axis.

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 text is organized with Args/Returns and stays under roughly 100 words, with the key axis constraint front-loaded. The mention of `controller` and the slight redundancy between pre-selected axis points and the assumed World-Z axis keep it from being perfectly lean.

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 core invocation path is covered: selection prerequisite, angle/start_angle meanings, and return shape, and an output schema exists. However, the relationship between selected axis start/end points and the 'assumed' World Z axis is ambiguous, and there is no guidance on error or edge cases, so an agent could mis-infer behavior when selections conflict.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must define the parameters; it does so with units and reference directions: `angle` in degrees with 360 meaning full solid, and `start_angle` in degrees with 0 meaning +X. It lists a `controller` argument that is absent from the input schema, which introduces minor ambiguity.

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 specific action ('Revolve the selected profile curve') and pins the operation to the World Z axis, so an agent can understand what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the near-named sibling `rhino_revolve` or `rhino_rail_revolve`, 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?

It gives clear preconditions: the profile curve and axis start/end points must be pre-selected or implied by the current selection, and it states the fixed axis assumption. It does not mention when to prefer `rhino_revolve` for arbitrary-axis revolves, but the context provided is otherwise sufficient.

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