rhino_array_polar

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

Annotations only indicate mutation via readOnlyHint=false. The description does not add behavioral context such as whether the original objects are copied or moved, whether new objects are created in the document, or how count and total angle affect the result.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though it could be expanded with additional guidance without becoming bloated.

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 tool with six parameters and no property descriptions, this description is far too thin. It does not explain polar-array semantics like rotation around a center point, angle coverage, or axis specification, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 provides no parameter meaning. An agent cannot infer the roles of object_ids, center, count, total_angle_degrees, axis, or doc_id from the text, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a specific action ('Array objects') and a specific pattern ('polar'), which is enough to distinguish it from linear and rectangular array siblings. However, it does not differentiate from the similarly named rhino_cmd_array_polar sibling.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rhino_array_linear, rhino_array_rectangular, or rhino_replicate_along_curve. There is also no mention of prerequisites such as needing an active document or existing object IDs.

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