rhino_cmd_move

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool acts on every currently-selected object and uses a Python script via rhinoscriptsyntax, which is useful. However, it does not mention that this mutates the model, whether the operation is undoable, or what happens when no objects are selected.

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 reasonably concise and well-structured, with a clear one-line summary followed by parameter explanations and return value. The implementation detail about Python scripting is useful but slightly more verbose than necessary for an agent selecting the 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?

The tool is simple with only three parameters and an output schema, but the description is missing practical context: it does not state that a selection is required, what happens with an empty selection, or how this command tool relates to the many other move-related siblings. It is sufficient for a basic call but leaves some operational ambiguity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does define dx, dy, and dz as displacements along the X, Y, and Z axes, adding meaning beyond the bare parameter names. However, it does not specify units, coordinate system, or behavior when values are defaulted to zero, and it lists a 'controller' argument that is not present in the input schema.

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 a specific action ('Move selected objects') and the key input displacement vector (dx, dy, dz). It conveys both the resource (selected objects) and the operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling rhino_move.

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?

The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like rhino_move, rhino_move_objects_to_layer, or rhino_move_uvn. It explains the implementation mechanism but not the intended selection criteria or conflict with similar siblings.

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