rhino_create_torus

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the tool mutates state, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention side effects (e.g., adding an object to the model), output behavior, or any requirements (like having an open document). The description offers minimal value beyond the 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, clear sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the action and key attributes, making it appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description doesn't need to explain returns or safety, but it is still incomplete. It fails to mention the center point (a crucial parameter), how to specify a name or layer, or any orientation defaults. For a creation tool, an agent needs to know what parameters are essential and what the resulting object's placement depends on. The description leaves these gaps, making the tool harder to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only mentions major and minor radii, omitting the 'center', 'name', and 'layer' parameters entirely. It provides no details on defaults, relationships, or how these parameters affect the result, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance on how to set them.

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 tool creates a torus with major and minor radii, using a specific verb (create) and resource (torus). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling create tools, the name and content make the purpose unambiguous enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other create_* tools. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or any context that would help an agent decide between creating a torus and another shape.

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