rhino_tolerance_set

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the verb 'Set'. With readOnlyHint=false annotation already indicating a write operation, the description adds no extra context about side effects, permission requirements, or impact on existing objects.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action. Every word earns its place with no waste.

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 setter tool with an output schema, the description is sparse. It lacks important context such as error handling, confirmation of success, or that it modifies the current document's tolerances globally. Given the presence of an output schema, more detail on what to expect would be beneficial.

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 mentions absolute, angle, and optional relative tolerances, which maps to the schema parameters. However, the schema already contains detailed descriptions for each parameter (doc_id, absolute, relative, angle_degrees), so the description adds limited additional semantic value.

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 (Set), the resource (tolerances), and the scope (on the document). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rhino_tolerance_get by focusing on setting rather than getting tolerances.

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 (e.g., rhino_tolerance_get for reading tolerances, or other document settings tools). It offers no context about prerequisites, default behavior, or when not to use it.

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