radial_array

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates the scene. The description adds useful context beyond that: it discloses that copies are merged and that the axis is a world axis. It does not disclose what happens to the source object (see keep_source) or whether the merge is irreversible.

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 compact sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and illustrative examples trailing. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 destructive 7-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the geometry basics but omits critical details such as the effect of `keep_source` on the original object and the naming behavior. Adequate but incomplete for a tool with this much destructive potential.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it partially does: it explains `center`, `angle` (degrees, 360 = full circle), and `axis` (world axis). It leaves `keep_source` and `name` entirely unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for a destructive merge operation.

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 (repeat), resource (object), and result (merge the copies), plus clarifies parameter semantics like 360 = full circle. It is clear enough that an agent can distinguish it from most siblings, but it never names or contrasts with the closest sibling `array` or `duplicate`.

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 (spokes, columns in a ring, petals, gears) imply the kinds of tasks this is for, giving implied usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, and no mention of when to prefer the sibling `array` or `duplicate` instead.

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