rhino_orient

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

The annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds the core behavioral fact that this is a PlaneToPlane transform, which is useful but not rich. It does not disclose that make_copy defaults to false (meaning objects are transformed in place) or describe any side effects, limits, or coordinate-system expectations, leaving the agent to infer those from the schema.

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, efficient sentence with no filler, and the action is front-loaded. It earns its place, though the extreme brevity leaves it with little structure or illustrative detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described, and the core plane-to-plane operation is clear. However, the description omits important call context such as the in-place-versus-copy behavior (make_copy), doc_id handling, and the fact that object_ids must identify the source objects, so an agent must dig into the schema to call the tool safely and intentionally.

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%, so the description should compensate, but it only loosely maps to from_plane/to_plane and object_ids. It adds no meaning for make_copy, doc_id, or the plane axis requirements, so the agent must rely heavily on field names and the nested PlaneModel definitions rather than on the tool description.

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 action ('orient'), a target resource ('objects'), and a precise scope: 'from one plane to another (PlaneToPlane transform)'. This clearly differentiates it from related orient tools such as rhino_orient_3pt or rhino_orient_on_crv by naming the plane-to-plane method, even though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 phrase 'from one plane to another' provides a clear usage context: use this tool when the source and destination planes are known and you need a plane-to-plane reorientation. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as rhino_orient_3pt or rhino_orient_on_crv, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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