rhino_explode_block

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds minimal extra context about the actual operation but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the block definition is removed or other instances are affected). It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It states the verb, object, and result directly, which is optimal for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core intent. However, it leaves a gap by not differentiating from the generic rhino_explode tool, which could cause an agent to select the wrong tool. A short note on when to use this instead of rhino_explode would make it fully complete.

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 schema already provides a description for the guid parameter ('GUID of the block instance to explode'), so the parameter is well-documented. The tool description adds a small amount of context by tying the guid to a block instance, but does not add formatting or usage details beyond the schema.

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 ('Explode'), the resource ('a block instance'), and the outcome ('into its constituent objects'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling rhino_explode by specifying block instances, making it unambiguous.

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 is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is a sibling named rhino_explode which likely handles exploding non-block objects, but the description does not mention this distinction or any prerequisites.

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