rhino_twist

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

Annotations only provide a title 'Twist' with no read-only or destructive hints, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It states that objects are twisted but does not disclose that this is a mutating operation, whether make_copy preserves originals, how angle direction sign is determined, or whether the twist is permanent. The schema shows make_copy exists, but the description does not explain the behavioral consequence of the operation.

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 sentence that is immediately informative. It names the operation, the target objects, the mechanism (axis), and the key parameter (angle). No filler or redundant wording.

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 transform modifying objects, the description is too thin. It does not mention that the operation is destructive unless make_copy is true, how the angle sign behaves along the axis, which object types are supported, or how results relate to the original geometry. With no output schema details in the description and 0% schema coverage, an agent lacks enough context to correctly predict outcomes or decide between twist alternatives.

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%, with 5 parameters (object_ids, axis_start, axis_end, angle_degrees, make_copy) nested under args. The description only mentions 'axis' and 'angle' generically, but does not explain how axis_start/axis_end define the twist axis direction, that angle_degrees is in degrees, or what make_copy=false does to the original objects. The Point3dModel nested schema covers coordinates, but the top-level twist semantics remain under-explained.

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 'Twist objects around an axis by a specified angle' provides a clear verb ('Twist'), resource ('objects'), and key geometric parameters (axis and angle). It distinguishes itself from related transforms like rotate/taper/bend by specifying the axis-based twist operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from rhino_cmd_twist, its closest sibling, which could reduce clarity slightly.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_rotate, rhino_bend, rhino_taper, or rhino_cmd_twist. There is no mention of object types, prerequisites, or scenarios where twisting is the appropriate transform. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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