rhino_annotation_revision_cloud

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, indicating a write operation, which aligns with 'draw'. However, the description adds no further behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., object creation, layer modifications), permission needs, or limitations. For a mutation tool with no annotation coverage of behavior, more transparency is expected.

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 sentence that is concise but lacks structure. It includes the term 'bumpy polyline' which adds mild color, but does not front-load the most critical information (e.g., boundary input). The sentence earns its place but misses opportunities to convey more in a compact way.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple parameters, nested schema, output schema) and the presence of many sibling annotation tools, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what a revision cloud is, how boundary points define the region, the significance of bump_count/radius, or what the output represents. The agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior or constraints from this description alone.

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?

The description does not mention any of the tool's parameters (e.g., boundary_points, bump_count, revision_no). With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate by explaining key parameters and how they affect the output. It fails to do so, leaving the agent without guidance on how to populate the input schema effectively.

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 ('draw'), resource ('revision cloud'), and a distinctive feature ('with a revision label'). It distinguishes the tool from sibling annotation tools like rhino_text or rhino_annotation_callout, which serve different purposes. However, it could be more precise about the coordinate system or that it operates in document units.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., active document) or conditions (e.g., requiring a viewport). The agent is left to infer usage from the name and siblings without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements.

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