Revolve

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

The description contradicts the destructiveHint=false annotation. It explicitly warns that cut/intersect with target_body_name unset will cut EVERY body within the revolve's sweep and cites a live incident where unrelated bodies were sliced. That is destructive behavior, so the annotation and description are inconsistent.

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?

Three tightly written sentences: purpose first, then the critical safety warning, then units. The warning is long but every clause earns its place by preventing a confirmed destructive mistake. No filler.

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 10-parameter CAD tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the most important safety issue and unit conventions. But it leaves many parameters semantically opaque and includes a destructive warning that conflicts with the destructiveHint=false annotation, reducing trust in the tool contract.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate. It adds critical meaning for target_body_name and clarifies that lengths/coordinates are in cm and angles in degrees. But operation enum values, axis_origin_* / axis_direction_* semantics, and profile_index remain unexplained in both schema and description.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Revolve a sketch profile around an axis.' It clearly identifies the operation. It does not differentiate from siblings like extrude, sweep, or loft, so it falls 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 a strong conditional rule for operation cut/intersect: pass target_body_name when the document has more than one body. However, it does not say when to choose revolve over alternatives such as extrude or sweep, nor does it explain when to use new_body versus join. Usage is implied rather than fully guided.

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