cad_revolve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions operation types but omits critical details like error conditions, authorization needs, or whether the feature is created or modified. The return format is not described.

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 concise (two sentences) but could be better structured. It front-loads the main action but mixes the angle note with operation enum in a run-on format. It is efficient but lacks clarity on parameter grouping.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain required parameters (e.g., axisId, sketchFeatureId) or the overall workflow. The tool is moderately complex, and the description leaves significant gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain all parameters. It only covers angle and operation partially, leaving documentId, workspaceId, elementId, sketchFeatureId, axisId, and name unexplained. This is insufficient for autonomous agent use.

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 'Revolve a sketch region about an axis edge', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cad_extrude and cad_chamfer by focusing on rotational operations.

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 provides some usage hints like angle options and operation types, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives such as extrude or mirror. It does not specify prerequisites like sketch closure or axis intersection.

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