rhino_drawing_sheet_create

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint: false, consistent with a write operation. The description adds that it creates a rectangle and sets user_text metadata, disclosing these behaviors. No contradiction found. It could mention side effects like overwriting an existing sheet with the same name, but overall good transparency.

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 short and front-loaded, getting to the point quickly. The use of backticks and a continuation line adds some formatting but overall efficient. Every sentence provides value, though it could be more structured with clearer sections.

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, output schema exists), the description is adequate but has gaps. It provides context about subsequent tools re-deriving sheet properties from user_text, but doesn't mention prerequisites, return value, or behavior when a sheet name already exists. Completes the essential info but lacks some completeness.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It mentions 'rectangle's corners define sheet bounds' referencing origin, width, height, and 'user_text holds sheet name, paper size, scale denominator' referencing name, width_mm, height_mm, scale_denominator. However, it does not fully detail each parameter's purpose, range, or defaults, leaving gaps.

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 creates a sheet container on a specific layer, carrying user_text metadata. It specifies the verb 'create' and resource 'sheet container', and the detail about layer and metadata distinguishes it from sibling tools like rhino_drawing_view_place or rhino_drawing_title_block_add.

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 as the first step for sheet creation by stating the rectangle's corners define bounds and user_text holds info for subsequent tools. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, such as when-not or prerequisite conditions like having an active document.

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