rhino_rotate_3d

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state that the operation affects selected objects and returns a dict, but it does not clarify whether the rotation is in-place, whether new objects are created, what happens with an empty selection, or whether the operation is reversible. These are important behavioral traits for a mutation tool.

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 short, structured with Args/Returns, and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. It avoids unnecessary prose, though the mention of a non-schema controller parameter adds minor noise.

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 transformation tool, the core parameters and return type are covered, and an output schema exists to document the return structure. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description omits practical details such as selection requirements, coordinate system, and how the rotation axis is interpreted, leaving some gaps for an agent to resolve.

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. It explains axis_start, axis_end, and angle with concise phrases and adds the important detail that angle is in degrees. However, it does not specify the expected coordinate list format for points, and it mentions a 'controller' argument that is not present in the input schema, which could confuse an agent.

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 the action ('Rotate selected objects') and the resource/scope ('around an arbitrary 3-D axis'), which distinguishes it from simpler 2D rotation tools. It is specific and immediately understandable, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or edge cases.

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 implies that the operation applies to selected objects, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus rhino_rotate, rhino_cmd_rotate, or other transform tools. There are no stated preconditions, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the correct context.

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