rhino_set_display_mode

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

The description adds that the change applies to the 'active viewport' and lists example modes. Annotations already convey idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no contradiction exists. However, the description does not elaborate on side effects, reversibility, or how the change affects the scene, relying on annotations for safety semantics.

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, well-structured sentence with zero redundancy. It front-loads the action and object, then provides illustrative examples. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter operation with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is essentially complete. It states the scope ('active viewport') and the parameter is fully documented in the schema. No critical information for correct invocation is missing.

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 definition for the single parameter 'mode' provides a full list of allowed values with a clear description. The tool description mentions 'etc.' but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already carries strong parameter semantics, the description does not need to compensate, but it also adds no extra 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 states a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('display mode of the active viewport') with concrete examples (Wireframe, Shaded, Rendered). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like rhino_set_view, which deals with camera orientation, making the purpose 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does without mentioning exclusions (e.g., not for camera view) or recommending a different tool for other scenarios. Given the large sibling set, explicit routing would be helpful.

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