rhino_drawing_view_place

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds the 'bridge only' context but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as side effects on original objects, permission requirements, or output format. Annotations carry some burden, but more detail would be helpful.

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 (16 words) that immediately states the action and resource. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded with the verb 'project'.

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 (nested object, many parameters, output schema exists), the description is too brief. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., sheet_id from rhino_drawing_sheet_create), constraints (max 500 objects), or the output. The 'bridge only' note is vague.

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 input schema has descriptions for parameters like target_origin and viewport_scale, so baseline is 3. However, the tool description adds no parameter information (0% coverage), missing the chance to explain critical parameters like sheet_id or object_ids.

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's purpose: projecting objects to a 2-D view (Make2D) and placing the result on a sheet. It specifies 'bridge only', distinguishing it from similar tools like rhino_make2d which only project without placing.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions 'bridge only', which is a constraint but does not explain the decision context or prerequisites like creating a sheet first with rhino_drawing_sheet_create.

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