rhino_create_block

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no further context about side effects. Critically, the description does not disclose that the default behavior is to delete original objects (via delete_originals=true), which is a significant behavioral omission given the annotation claims non-destructive. The description does not contradict the annotations, but it adds no value beyond them.

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 concise at two sentences, with a clear opening statement of purpose. It is front-loaded with the primary action and follows with a rationale. However, it lacks any structured breakdown of usage, making it slightly less effective than it could be, though it earns a 4 for efficiency.

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 has 4 parameters including a nested object and a destructive default, plus an existence of an output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not describe how to select objects (guids), the base point role, or the deletion behavior. An agent cannot reliably know what to pass or what to expect, making this inadequate for a non-trivial creation tool.

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 the lack of parameter documentation. It does not explain any of the parameters (name, guids, base_point, delete_originals) or their purpose. An agent has to rely solely on the schema field names, which is insufficient for correct invocation, especially for the delete_originals side effect.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Create a block definition' and explicitly distinguishes it from inserting instances by saying 'reusable geometry instances' and mentioning batch updates. It clearly separates this from sibling tools like rhino_insert_block or rhino_list_blocks.

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 explains why blocks are useful (save memory, batch updates) but gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and does not mention that this is for defining blocks rather than inserting them. An agent would have to infer the use case from the name and phrase 'block definition'.

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