rhino_cmd_rotate

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses that the rotation is planar about the CPlane normal, that cz is ignored, and that axis is only an API-symmetry hint. It could additionally state prerequisites such as needing a current selection and whether the operation mutates objects, but it already conveys the critical behavioral constraints.

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 front-loaded with the operation, immediately gives the 3-D alternative, then uses a clean Args/Returns structure. Every section earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 simple command with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and the key alternative. It would be more complete if it stated that the objects must be selected before calling and clarified the relationship to rhino_rotate, but the current definition is sufficient for most invocation scenarios.

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 Args block adds real meaning to the schema's bare titles: cx/cy/cz are center coordinates, angle is in degrees, and axis is effectively ignored. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though the description lists a `controller` argument that is not present in the input schema, which is a minor mismatch.

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 first sentence names a specific action (rotate), a specific resource (selected objects), and the coordinate frame (active construction plane). It also explicitly contrasts itself with rhino_rotate_3d, so an agent can distinguish the planar operation from true 3-D rotation.

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?

It gives an explicit exclusion: 'For a true 3-D axis rotation use rhino_rotate_3d instead.' However, it does not disambiguate from the closely named sibling rhino_rotate, which is likely the main alternative for the same planar operation, so the guidance is good but incomplete.

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