rhino_move

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the bare action. It does not state whether the move modifies objects in place, whether it creates copies, what happens to selection, or if undo is supported. Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and do not fill this gap, so the description falls short of providing useful behavioral context.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and vector concept, making it easy to parse. Ideal length for a simple operation.

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 straightforward move operation with a well-defined schema and an output schema present (return values not needed in description), the description is minimally sufficient. However, it omits any hint about coordinate systems, units, or whether the move is relative to the object's current position. These are not critical given the schema, but they would improve completeness for an agent without Rhino domain knowledge.

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 input schema already includes descriptions for both parameters ('GUIDs of objects to move' and 'Translation vector'), so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The tool description adds no additional insight about how to construct the translation vector or interpret the GUIDs, but this is acceptable given the schema coverage. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Move objects') and the mechanism ('by a translation vector'), making it obvious what the tool does and distinct from sibling transform tools like rhino_rotate or rhino_scale. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the verb and vector qualifier are specific enough.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_rotate, rhino_scale, or rhino_copy. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer suitability from the name alone.

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