rhino_block_insert

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false. The description adds behavioral details beyond that, such as the distinction between standalone and bridge mode, and that bridge mode respects the active layer and links to the definition. This is valuable context not present in annotations.

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 with two sentences and front-loads the core action. However, the second sentence is somewhat technical ('Constructs a rhino3dm.InstanceReferenceGeometry') which may be less accessible.

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 complexity of the tool (multiple modes, many parameters, output schema exists), the description explains the dual mode well but lacks completeness on parameter descriptions. With output schema present, return values are covered, but parameter coverage is insufficient.

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 only mentions insertion_point, scale, and rotation, but the schema includes many other parameters (name, layer, doc_id, instance_name, etc.). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it fails to cover the required 'name' parameter or optional ones like 'layer' and 'doc_id'.

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 'Insert' and the resource 'a block instance', and specifies key parameters (insertion_point, scale, rotation). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rhino_block_define and rhino_block_explode.

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 mentions two modes (standalone vs bridge) and gives context on bridge mode's behavior (honours active layer, links instance). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other block tools, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives.

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