rhino_rotate

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which signals a mutating operation, but the description adds no behavioral detail about whether objects are replaced in place, whether make_copy preserves the original, how the document is affected, or whether undo is supported. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not enrich them. The description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency in a context without rich annotation details.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core operation and key geometry. It earns its place without fluff, though it could have added a brief note about copies or rotation angle without becoming verbose. Overall, it is efficient and appropriately sized.

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?

Given that this is a mutating operation with several parameters and a large sibling toolset that includes other rotation-related tools, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the expected output, the default axis behavior, how angle_degrees is interpreted, or when to use rhino_rotate_3d instead. The output schema exists, but the description still leaves too much implicit for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 must compensate, but it only explains the axis and center concept. The input schema itself provides parameter names and some defaults, but several parameters such as make_copy, angle_degrees, and object_ids are not explained beyond their names. The description adds partial value by clarifying the geometric meaning of 'axis' and 'centre point', but it leaves important behavioral parameters undocumented.

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 'Rotate objects about an axis through a centre point' clearly identifies the operation (rotate) and the key geometric parameters (axis through a center point). It is a distinct operation among the many Rhino sibling tools, so an agent can tell it apart from other transform tools like move, scale, or twist. However, it lacks any mention of optional behaviors like copying or document targeting, so it is clear but not fully explicit about scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_rotate_3d, rhino_cmd_rotate, rhino_twist, or rhino_bend. It does not state limitations, prerequisites, or when another transform tool would be more appropriate. The context is minimal and does not help an agent decide among the many sibling transformation tools.

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