rhino_set_name

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

Annotations already indicate the tool mutates (readOnlyHint=false), is idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and is non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as what happens to an existing name or any side effects. It neither contradicts nor enriches beyond annotations, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 waste. It states the action and resource clearly without any redundant details, making it easy to parse.

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, with an output schema present (so return values are defined elsewhere), and annotations cover safety and idempotency. However, the description lacks any guidance on prerequisites, error handling, or specific usage context that would help an agent invoke it correctly beyond the obvious action.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% per context signals, and the tool description does not explain the parameters 'guid' and 'name' at all. Although the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to infer parameter purpose from names alone.

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 or change the name') and the resource ('a Rhino object'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rhino_set_color or rhino_set_layer by specifying the 'name' attribute, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 usage when one wants to set or rename an object's name, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any prerequisites (e.g., object must exist). Since the sibling tools are distinct properties, the usage is fairly obvious, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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