rhino_cmd_array_polar

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core mutation ('Create') but omits material behavior: whether the original objects are preserved or replaced (Rhino polar arrays typically keep originals and add copies, but this is not stated), the coordinate frame that cx/cy/cz refer to, the empty-selection failure mode, and whether the operation is undoable. The terse 'Returns: Dict with command result' adds no behavioral depth.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args/Returns docstring structure is legible, but the description is verbose by MCP standards: the Returns line duplicates what the output schema already provides, and the phantom controller entry is pure noise. It is organized but not tightly edited.

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 5-parameter creation command with an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what every parameter means. However, material context is missing: why rhino_array_polar coexists with this tool, the selection prerequisite and no-selection behavior, and the coordinate system of the center point. With zero annotations covering safety or side effects, these omissions leave the definition only minimally viable.

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 schema exposes only bare titles (Cx, Cy, Cz, Angle, Count), so the description must supply parameter meaning — and it does so well: count is clarified as the total number of items including the original, angle as the total sweep in degrees, and cx/cy/cz as the array center. A notable defect is the documented 'controller' argument that does not exist in the input schema, which could cause an agent to pass an unsupported parameter.

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 opening sentence — 'Create a polar array of selected objects around a center point' — names a specific verb (Create), a precise resource (polar array of selected objects), and the geometric anchor (center point). It clearly states what the tool does, but it does not differentiate this tool from the near-identical sibling rhino_array_polar, nor does it position it among rhino_array_linear, rhino_array_rectangular, and rhino_array_on_curve, so it stops short of a 5.

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 array siblings, especially the near-duplicate rhino_array_polar or the alternative array patterns (linear, rectangular, on-curve). The description also never states that objects must be pre-selected, what happens if nothing is selected, or when this tool would be inappropriate. An agent must infer all usage context 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.