rhino_block_redefine

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that the operation replaces geometry and propagates to instances, which is consistent and provides context beyond the annotation. However, it does not detail potential destructive effects or prerequisites.

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, 14 words, which is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It could be slightly expanded without harming conciseness to cover parameters.

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 has 4 sub-parameters and multiple sibling block tools, the description lacks crucial details like block existence requirement, object_ids role, and base_point usage. Output schema exists, but the description is still insufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%; the tool description provides no parameter explanations. The agent gets no help understanding the meaning of 'name', 'object_ids', 'base_point', or 'doc_id' beyond the schema structure.

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 uses a specific verb ('Replace'), identifies the resource ('block definition's geometry'), and notes propagation to instances. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like block_define, block_insert, etc., by including '(bridge only)'.

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 implies usage for redefining block geometry, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., block_define for new blocks). The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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