rhino_create_cylinder

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds a basic summary but no additional behavioral context. It does not disclose that base_center is optional with default origin, nor does it mention cap behavior, placement layer, or side effects on existing geometry. For a creation tool, more transparency about defaults and scope would be valuable.

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?

A single, direct sentence with no filler. It is appropriately brief and front-loads the core parameters, making it easy to parse.

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?

Given this is a geometry creation tool with multiple parameters, defaults, and an output schema, the description is thin. It does not mention units, coordinate conventions, default cap behavior, or what the return value represents. An agent would need to consult the schema and possibly external documentation to call it correctly.

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, but implies all three are required, whereas the schema marks only radius and height as required. It omits cap, name, and layer parameters, which already have descriptions in the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the description adds little value and may mislead about requiredness.

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 (Create) and the resource (cylinder), and specifies the key dimensions (base center, radius, height). This distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like rhino_create_sphere or rhino_create_box, which have different parameters and shapes.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., extrusion or loft for complex shapes). It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone, which is minimal guidance.

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