rhino_point

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutates) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it adds 'a single point', which is minimal. It does not disclose important details like whether it checks for duplicates, requires an active document, or how it interacts with layers.

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, concise and front-loaded. However, it omits important usage and parameter guidance, so while efficient, it is not complete enough to earn a 5.

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 simplicity and rich sibling set, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the output is (though an output schema exists), nor does it provide any contextual hints about when to choose this tool over others like rhino_search_rhinoscript_functions or rhino_get_control_points. The description covers only the most basic purpose.

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 provides no information about parameters. Although the schema documents nested fields (point, name, layer, doc_id) with descriptions, the tool description itself adds no value. With 0% schema coverage for the top-level 'args' parameter, the description should compensate but does not.

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 'Add' and the resource 'single point to the document', making the tool's function unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like rhino_line (adds line) or rhino_helix (adds helix) by specifying a point.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not compare with rhino_text_dot (adds text dot) or rhino_attractor_displace_points (modifies points). The description provides no context for selection or exclusion.

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