rhino_create_text

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, indicating mutation. The description adds the 'always-facing' characteristic, which is a useful behavioral detail for how the text appears in 3D. However, it does not disclose other traits such as the effect of the 'point' parameter (required? optional?) or any side effects. Given annotations cover safety, the description provides only marginal additional behavioral context beyond what annotations offer.

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 with no unnecessary words, which is concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with multiple parameters and no other explanation. Conciseness is achieved at the cost of completeness, but the structure is clear and front-loaded with the essential action.

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?

The tool has multiple parameters (text required, others optional) and a nested point structure, but the description gives no context about defaults, required fields, or how the point is used. An output schema exists but is not shown here; even so, the description should clarify the placement behavior and key inputs. The tool is relatively complex, yet the description provides minimal guidance, making it incomplete for an agent to call 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?

The description provides no information about any of the parameters (e.g., text, font, height, point, layer, name). The context signal indicates schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema also lacks parameter descriptions (though the actual schema shown includes descriptions, the signal indicates otherwise). Since the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage and fails to clarify the meaning or usage of parameters, this dimension is poorly handled.

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 tool creates a 'text dot' that is 'always-facing' (a label) at a point. This specifies a distinct resource (text dot/label) and the action (create), and it is differentiated from sibling tools like rhino_create_point or rhino_create_line by mention of 'text'. It lacks explicit mention that it creates a text object as opposed to a geometric shape, but it is clear enough.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when it should be chosen over other creation tools. For a tool among dozens of create operations, this is a significant gap.

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