rhino_create_sphere

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly conveys a mutation (creation). It does not add further detail such as whether the sphere is added to the active layer or if it overrides existing geometry, but for a simple creation tool the description is sufficient and consistent with annotations.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It communicates the core purpose efficiently and front-loads the primary inputs. There is zero 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?

Given the simplicity of a create-sphere operation and the presence of an output schema (which explains return values), the description covers the essential information. However, it does not mention optional parameters or any side effects, which could be expected from a full description. It is acceptable but not rich.

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%, and the description only mentions center and radius. It omits the optional parameters 'name' and 'layer' that exist in the schema, so an agent may not know about them. The description does not fully compensate for the lack of schema-level parameter documentation.

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 (a solid sphere) with the key inputs (center and radius). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like create_circle or create_box, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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 implies usage for creating a sphere, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions (e.g., for creating a hollow sphere or a sphere mesh). It is not misleading, but situational context is left to inference.

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