rhino_insert_block

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds little behavioral context. It does not disclose that inserting a block instance modifies the document, that the block definition must exist, or what happens with invalid inputs. No extra behavioral traits are described beyond what 'insert' implies.

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 that immediately conveys the core action and key options. There is no filler or unnecessary information. It is well-structured and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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's low complexity and that an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It misses critical context such as the requirement that the block definition already exists, and it offers no guidance on error conditions or interaction with layers. For a modification tool, some behavioral prerequisites are expected but not provided, leaving gaps that could lead to misuse.

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 includes detailed descriptions for every parameter (e.g., name: 'Block definition name to insert', scale: 'Scale factor', rotation: 'Rotation angle in degrees', insertion_point: 'Insertion point'). Since schema description coverage is effectively high, the description does not need to repeat these details. The description mentions 'point', 'scale', and 'rotation' which aligns with schema parameters but adds no new semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Insert a block instance'), the resource (block instance), and key parameters (point, scale, rotation). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rhino_create_block (which defines a block) and rhino_explode_block (which breaks block instances). The verb and object are specific and 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the block definition must already exist), nor does it explain when to prefer rhino_insert_block over rhino_move or rhino_copy. The agent has to infer usage solely from the action name and parameter names.

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