mod_lathe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds the geometric outcome and the degrees default, but it does not explicitly state that the modifier is applied to named objects or the selection, or how it affects the object stack. 'Lathe modifier' is only implicit behavioral context.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and uses concrete examples efficiently. The bilingual duplication is justified given the audience and does not add real bloat.

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?

Together with the fully documented schema and annotations, the description provides enough to understand purpose, defaults, object targeting, and modifier nature. A small ambiguity remains because it does not clarify how mod_lathe differs from the similar model_lathe_spline sibling.

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?

The input schema documents all 7 parameters with bilingual descriptions and defaults, giving 100% coverage. The description only repeats the degrees=360 default, adding no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: a lathe modifier that revolves a profile around an axis into a solid of revolution, with concrete examples (bottles, columns, bowls). It does not explicitly distinguish this from the similar sibling model_lathe_spline, so it misses the top score.

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 examples imply when to use it (revolved shapes like bottles and bowls), but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as model_lathe_spline, mod_sweep, or mod_extrude. Usage context is implied, not stated.

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