rhino_attractor_displace_points

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

The description discloses key behavioral details beyond the annotation readOnlyHint=false: it explicitly states originals are deleted and new point IDs are returned, explains the displacement direction, and clarifies curve attractor behavior. This adds significant context beyond the minimal annotation.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence serves a purpose: first sentence defines operation, second clarifies strength, third explains attractor types, fourth notes side effect. No unnecessary information.

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 covers essential behavioral aspects and side effects, and since an output schema exists, return values are not needed. It lacks mention of falloff options (covered in schema) and potential conflicts if both attractor_point and attractor_curve_id are provided, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a single-parameter tool with rich 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?

While schema coverage is 0% (description does not list parameters), the schema itself has detailed descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the effect of strength polarity and the distinction between point and curve attractors, complementing the schema's structural definitions.

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 displaces input points along a vector to an attractor with a falloff, specifying positive/negative strength and two attractor types. It distinguishes itself by noting it is a form-finding move that deletes originals and returns new point IDs, setting it apart from duplicating or simple move tools.

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 explains the tool's behavior (e.g., polarity of strength, point vs. curve attractors) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or alternatives. Usage context is implied but not formally guided; no exclusions or conditions are provided.

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