rhino_add_dimension_angular

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a modal interaction ('placement mode') but does not explain whether an object is created, whether user input is required, what happens after placement, or whether the command is destructive or reversible.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description does not need to document return values, so the main gap is behavioral context. The phrase 'placement mode' is ambiguous about whether the tool requires interactive user input or simply creates an angular dimension, making the description minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify, and the empty input schema already conveys that the tool takes no arguments.

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 uses a specific verb ('Enter') and identifies the resource ('angular dimension placement mode'), which distinguishes it from linear, aligned, ordinate, and radial dimension siblings. It stops short of a 5 because it does not state the resulting outcome or how the mode affects the document.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_dimension_angular or other dimension-placement tools. No prerequisites, selection requirements, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use 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.