rhino_block_explode

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

The description uses the word 'explode' which implies destruction, but it does not disclose that the operation can optionally keep the instance (via 'keep_instance' parameter in the schema). Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation is clear, but the description adds no further behavioral context beyond that.

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, clear sentence. It is front-loaded and to the point. However, it is slightly under-specified, lacking details that could be added without losing conciseness.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description still falls short: it does not mention the optional keep_instance behavior or the doc_id parameter. The agent needs more context to use the tool correctly in all cases.

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 schema itself provides descriptions for all three parameters (doc_id, instance_id, keep_instance), so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds no additional parameter information, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'explode' and the resource 'block instance', and specifies the outcome 'into individual objects'. It also includes a scope limitation '(bridge only)', which helps differentiate from other block operations like insert or define. However, the meaning of 'bridge' is not explained.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'rhino_block_redefine' or other block manipulation tools. The '(bridge only)' hint is a constraint but does not serve as usage guidance for the agent.

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