Create polar array copies of entities around a center point. Use it to duplicate and rotate objects in a circular pattern by specifying entity IDs, center, count, and angle in radians.
Create polar array copies around a center. Angle is in radians and includes the source entity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| unit | No | ||
| angle | No | ||
| count | Yes | ||
| center | Yes | ||
| entity_ids | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the angle-unit convention (radians) and that the angle includes the source entity, which is genuinely useful. However, it omits whether the source entities are preserved, duplicated, or moved; whether the operation is destructive; and whether any permissions or placed-entity constraints apply.
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 tightly packed sentences; the unit convention and source-inclusion rule are front-loaded and every clause earns its place. 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 five-parameter, nested-object, no-output-schema mutation tool with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions, the description is far too thin. It leaves the agent to guess parameter meaning, side effects, and return behavior.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for five undocumented parameters. It only clarifies 'angle' semantics (radians, includes source), leaving 'center', 'count', 'entity_ids', and 'unit' with no semantic help beyond their names. The unit enum and required-vs-optional distinction are unaddressed.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create polar array copies around a center'), clearly distinguishing it from array_rectangular. The operation type is unambiguous, though the description could mention it operates on entity_ids to fully anchor the resource.
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?
No guidance on when to use polar array vs. array_rectangular or mirror_2d, nor any mention of prerequisites or conditions that select this tool over siblings. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.