rhino_revolve

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

The readOnlyHint=false annotation already signals mutation, and the description adds little beyond that. It does not disclose whether a new surface is created, whether the profile curve is consumed, what output is produced, or how layer/name handling works.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded, though the brevity comes at the cost of useful operational detail.

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 surface-creation tool with multiple parameters and many closely related siblings, the description is too sparse. It lacks prerequisites, output expectations, and any distinction from rail_revolve or sweep-based alternatives, leaving agents to infer too much.

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, but it only loosely hints at 'profile curve' and 'axis'. It does not explain axis_start/axis_end format, angle_degrees constraints, doc_id behavior, or optional name/layer parameters.

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 clearly states the operation: revolve a profile curve about an axis. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like rhino_rail_revolve or rhino_cmd_revolve, so the agent gets no explicit contrast.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_rail_revolve, rhino_sweep1, or rhino_cmd_revolve. The single sentence implies the basic operation but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria.

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