rhino_torus

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating nature is expected. The description adds that this produces a mesh approximation rather than a true NURBS/SubD torus, which is useful, but 'standalone mode' is vague and side effects or context are not disclosed.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical adds useful mode information, though 'standalone mode' is used without definition, so it is not perfectly clear.

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 creation tool with an output schema and required geometry parameters, the description is mostly adequate. However, it leaves key questions unanswered: what 'standalone mode' means, whether this creates a mesh in the active document, and how it differs from sibling torus-related tools.

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%, and the description provides only minimal parameter context by naming the torus primitive itself. It does not explain center, major_radius, minor_radius, layer, name, or doc_id, so it only weakly compensates for the schema 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Add a torus primitive.' The parenthetical 'mesh approximation in standalone mode' adds a distinguishing trait from potential NURBS or SubD torus siblings, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 phrase 'in standalone mode' is an implied usage signal, but it is never explained and no alternatives are mentioned. An agent cannot tell from the description when to choose rhino_torus over rhino_cmd_torus or rhino_subd_torus.

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