rhino_subd_cone

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool 'creates' a SubD cone and lists arguments; it does not disclose side effects, coordinate-system assumptions, axis orientation, document interaction, or return behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a clear one-line purpose followed by a concise parameter list. The only structural issue is the included 'controller' argument, which does not appear in the schema and adds confusion rather than value.

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 primitive-creation tool, the core geometric parameters are documented and an output schema exists, so a detailed return description is not mandatory. Still, the absence of usage context and the controller/schema mismatch leave the description minimally complete rather than fully reliable.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description helpfully defines x, y, z as base-center coordinates, radius as base radius, and height as cone height, adding real meaning beyond the bare schema names. However, it also lists a 'controller' argument that is absent from the input schema, which could confuse an agent attempting to invoke the tool.

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 ('Create') and the specific resource ('SubD cone primitive'), identifying the tool's purpose without ambiguity. The 'SubD' qualifier distinguishes it from NURBS cone siblings such as rhino_cone and from other SubD primitives.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like rhino_cone, rhino_subd_cylinder, or rhino_subd_sphere. There are no conditions, exclusions, or context about choosing a SubD primitive over a NURBS primitive, so an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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