catia_shaft

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the axis-resolution behavior—preferring the centre line—which is useful. However, it does not disclose edge cases like open profiles, invalid axes, or what happens if neither a centre line nor an explicit axis is provided.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary operation is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second efficiently explains the axis fallback logic. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, a clear operation statement, and adequate axis-handling guidance, an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly. A small gap remains around the requirement of a closed profile or error behavior, but this is not critical given the simplicity of the operation.

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 baseline is 3. The description's only parameter-related addition is the cross-reference to catia_sketch_line's axis flag and the rule for omitting 'axis'. This adds marginal value beyond the schema but does not compensate for gaps, since there are none.

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 clear resource ('a sketch profile around an axis'), and the expected outcome ('a solid of revolution'). It implicitly distinguishes from surface revolve (catia_gsd_revolve) and removal revolve (catia_groove) by emphasizing 'solid' and 'make', but it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 gives clear context on axis selection: use the sketch's centre line when present, otherwise pass an explicit axis reference. It also cross-references catia_sketch_line's axis flag. It does not discuss when to choose this tool over groove or other revolve-style operations, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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