rhino_create_cone

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

The description simply says 'Create a cone' which indicates a mutation, but the annotations already declare readOnlyHint: false, so it adds no new behavioral context. It does not disclose the return value, side effects on the document, or any orientation/axis assumptions. Unlike the high example, there is no additional detail beyond the annotation defaults.

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 a single, efficiently worded sentence with no redundancy or filler. It front-loads the core action and parameters. This is exemplary conciseness.

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?

The tool is a simple primitive creation with an output schema present, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks information about the cone's orientation (default along Z axis), the effect of the cap parameter (default true), and any behavioral notes about the creation process. For a basic create operation this is minimally viable, but an agent might under-specify a cone if it assumed no cap or a different axis.

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 description mentions 'base center, radius, and height' which maps to three schema parameters, but the schema already provides descriptions for each ('Base center point', 'Cone height', 'Base radius'). Schema description coverage is 0% meaning the tool description adds no extra meaning. It also omits cap, name, and layer parameters entirely. The description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 states a specific action (create) and resource (cone) and lists the three core geometric inputs (base center, radius, height). It clearly distinguishes from other creation tools like rhino_create_sphere or rhino_create_box. However, it does not differentiate the cone from rhino_create_cylinder, which shares the same base center/radius/height conceptual model, leaving mild ambiguity about what makes the cone unique.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of typical use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites (e.g., need for an active document, or that a capped cone is the default). An agent must infer usage purely from the name and sibling list.

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