rhino_project_to_cplane

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does disclose the most critical trait: 'Original objects are not kept.' This signals destructive behavior clearly. It also references the active construction plane, which is an important contextual dependency, though it does not mention undo behavior or what happens if nothing is 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 core description is only two sentences and front-loads the operation and the destructive outcome. The trailing 'Args' and 'Returns' lines are generic boilerplate but do not significantly bloat the definition, so it remains concise and scannable.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers what it does, where it operates, and the critical side effect. It could be more explicit about requiring an active selection and about how the active plane is determined, but those are reasonably implied by 'selected objects' and 'active construction plane.'

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description is not required to document parameter details. The 'Args: controller: RhinoController instance' line is somewhat boilerplate and not reflected in the schema, but since there are no actual user-supplied parameters, this does not create a real 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 ('Project'), a clear resource ('selected objects'), and a precise target ('the active construction plane'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like rhino_set_cplane (which sets the plane) and rhino_shadow_project (which projects shadows), so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening other definitions.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites such as ensuring objects are selected or setting the desired construction plane first. The phrasing 'selected objects' and 'active construction plane' implies state dependencies, but the description does not spell them out.

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