rhino_annotation_dimension_style

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, consistent with the write operation described. The description adds some behavioral context (bridge-only, targets DimStyle table) but does not disclose side effects like overwriting existing styles, permissions, or response behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential action and context efficiently.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits any mention of return values. It also lacks details on parameter effects, prerequisites (e.g., open document), or when to use this tool among siblings. The tool is moderately complex with 5 parameters, yet the description is minimal.

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 description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention any parameters or their purposes. The schema property names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the agent lacks guidance on required vs. optional fields and their impact.

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 tool registers a reusable dimension style, using a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('reusable dimension style'). It differentiates from sibling annotation tools like rhino_dimension_linear by focusing on style creation rather than placing dimension objects.

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 versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no examples. The agent receives no context about appropriate scenarios for registering a dimension style.

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