rhino_set_cplane

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It says the CPlane origin is set, but does not explain side effects, coordinate reference, scope beyond origin, required Rhino state, or reversibility. The docstring also lists a 'controller' argument that is not present in the input schema, which is confusing and reduces transparency.

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 reasonably compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the 'controller: RhinoController instance' line does not map to any schema parameter and adds confusion rather than value, and the 'Returns: Dict with command result' line is almost tautological. Overall it is structured, but not every sentence earns its place.

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 mutating command with no annotations, the description omits important context: coordinate system/units, whether the origin is world-relative or CPlane-relative, what happens to the active construction plane, and whether an open document or active Rhino controller is required. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the behavioral and environmental gaps remain significant.

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%, but the description compensates by defining every exposed parameter: 'view' as a viewport name with examples, and origin_x/y/z as coordinates of the new CPlane origin. This adds real meaning beyond the bare integer/string types. The unrelated 'controller' entry is a blemish, but the majority of parameter semantics are clearly supplied.

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 opens with a specific, unambiguous action: 'Set the construction plane origin for the specified viewport.' This clearly identifies the resource (CPlane origin) and scope (a named viewport), which helps distinguish it from view-changing or object-transform tools. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like rhino_origin_set or rhino_set_view, so it narrowly misses a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer when it is appropriate.

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