rhino_annotation_callout

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false) by stating 'Add a callout', indicating a write operation. However, it does not add behavioral context beyond that, such as the fact that it creates an annotation object in the active document or that it requires an open 3D model. With annotations already signaling mutation, the description is adequate but minimal.

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, which is concise but too brief for adequate information. It front-loads the purpose but sacrifices completeness. It could benefit from a second sentence to cover parameters or usage context without becoming verbose.

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?

The description omits mention of required parameters (target_point, leader_origin, text), optional parameters (name, layer, style), and the return value (output schema exists but is not referenced). For a tool with nested objects and multiple parameters, the description is insufficiently complete for an AI agent to use correctly without additional information from the schema.

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%, meaning the tool description does not describe any parameters. Although the JSON schema itself includes some parameter descriptions (like style and doc_id), the tool description adds no semantic value. For a tool with multiple required and optional parameters, the description should provide at least a brief overview of what parameters are needed.

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 verb 'Add' and the resource 'callout', and explains what it produces ('leader + balloon or boxed label'). This distinguishes it from sibling annotation tools like rhino_leader or rhino_text_dot.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, document state requirements, or typical use cases. An agent would need prior domain knowledge to decide between this and similar tools like rhino_annotation_leader.

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