rhino_gh_set_slider

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by stating that setting the slider drives parametric updates, implying side effects such as triggering recomputation. Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes (e.g., missing slider, unmet prerequisites) or whether changes are immediately reflected, but this is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and it is exceptionally concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, the description omits practical context such as requiring a loaded Grasshopper definition, the need for the slider to exist, or what happens on failure. These details would help the agent use the tool reliably. For a basic setter, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for each parameter ('New slider value' and 'Grasshopper slider component name or nickname'), so the description does not need to add much. However, it adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema gives—it merely repeats the concept of setting a slider. No compensation is needed because schema coverage is sufficient, but there is no added 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 value), the target (a Grasshopper slider), and the purpose (drive parametric updates). This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like rhino_gh_get_outputs (which reads) and rhino_gh_run_script (which runs scripts), so an agent can immediately understand what this tool does.

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 when to use this tool (when you need to update a slider value) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to select (e.g., rhino_gh_get_outputs for reading values, or rhino_gh_run_script for more complex parametric changes). No exclusions or sibling comparisons are given, so it relies on the agent to infer context.

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