model_lathe_spline

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. But it adds little behavioral context: it mentions 'adding a Lathe modifier' but doesn't explain that the original spline is modified, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens to the source. Since the annotation covers destructiveness, a score of 2 reflects the lack of added behavioral detail.

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 short and to the point, with the core action front-loaded. It is written in both Chinese and English, which is useful for international users, but not overly verbose. No fluff.

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 tool that creates a solid of revolution from a spline, the description lacks essential context such as how the axis is determined, whether the original spline is kept or replaced, and what the resulting object looks like. There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values or side effects, but it doesn't. The tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, so this is a significant gap.

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 all six parameters (smooth, degrees, objects, segments, weldCore, flipNormals) already have descriptive text. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 action ('revolve a spline around an axis into a solid of revolution') and the resource (spline) with a specific result. It also notes the profile should be a 2D outline. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mod_lathe, which also adds a Lathe modifier, so it's not fully distinct.

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 such as mod_lathe or model_extrude_spline. The only hint is that the profile should be 2D, which is a prerequisite rather than usage context. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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