rhino_object_move_to_layer

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

The description confirms the tool is a write operation (reassigning objects) and adds the layer-creation behavior beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like changing object visibility or performance implications for large selections, which would be useful given the mutation nature.

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 that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous words. However, it could be slightly expanded to cover parameters 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 complexity (three parameters, no schema descriptions, and a wide array of sibling tools), the description is too sparse. While an output schema exists, the lack of parameter details and usage context undermines the agent's ability to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the parameters, but it only mentions 'objects' and 'layer' generically. The schema has three properties (layer, doc_id, object_ids) with constraints (e.g., max 500 items, default doc_id), none of which are described. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's 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 clearly states the action 'reassign one or more objects to a different layer' with the notable feature of creating the layer if absent. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like rhino_layer_create (which only creates layers) and rhino_object_delete (which removes objects).

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_layer_create or modifying layers directly. There are no usage constraints, prerequisites, or scenarios described, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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