catia_gsd_revolve

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

Annotations provide no hints (all false), so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action and output, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., creating a feature in the part), whether it modifies the active geoset, or any constraints like the axis being a line or the profile being planar. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded. It conveys the essential action without unnecessary words. No wasted content.

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 minimal for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain the effect of angle and second_angle (partial revolve), optional parameters like name and geoset, or any prerequisites or limitations. Given the lack of annotations, the description should provide more context about what the tool does and when it is appropriate, but it is too sparse.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters including default values and units. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only mentions profile and axis without elaborating on their token format or relationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action (revolve) and the resource (profile around an axis) and specifies the output as a surface of revolution. It distinguishes from solid revolve tools like shaft by saying 'surface of revolution', but it does not explicitly name alternatives or differentiate from other GSD surface tools such as extrude or sweep.

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. It does not mention that shaft is for solid revolution, or that this tool is specifically for GSD surfaces, nor any prerequisites like requiring a closed profile or a linear axis. The required parameters are evident from the schema, but no context on when to choose this tool over siblings is provided.

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