rhino_set_user_text

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: false, which signals a write operation. The description 'Attach' aligns with this and adds the semantics of adding a key-value entry to an object's user text. However, it doesn't disclose whether existing keys are overwritten, whether it creates a new user text dictionary, or any side effects. With annotations providing the write hint, the description adds moderate value but lacks depth.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the core behavior. It earns its place without unnecessary verbosity, though it could add a bit more detail (e.g., overwrite behavior) without becoming bloated.

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?

For a simple key-value write tool, the description covers the basics: attaching user text to an object. But with no output schema explanation needed, the main missing context is behavior for duplicate keys, whether empty values are allowed, and how doc_id routing works. The description is adequate but not complete enough for an agent to infer all edge cases.

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 must compensate for parameter meaning. The description mentions a 'key-value user text entry' and 'an object', which maps to the required 'key', 'value', and 'object_id' parameters. However, it doesn't explain the optional 'doc_id' parameter or provide formats for the key/value. The description adds some meaning but doesn't fully compensate for 0% schema coverage.

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 'Attach a key-value user text entry to an object.' clearly states the action (attach), the resource (key-value user text entry), and the target (an object). It does not explicitly distinguish it from rhino_get_user_text or rhino_cmd_set_user_text, but the verb 'attach' and the sibling rhino_get_user_text indicate a write operation, so it's mostly clear.

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 a write operation for attaching user text to an object, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like rhino_cmd_set_user_text or rhino_bim_metadata_set. No exclusionary guidance is given, so an agent would need to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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