rhino_set_user_text

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it is a write-type set operation, which is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. There is no conflict with annotations, but the description doesn't elaborate on overwrite behavior or side effects.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core verb+resource, and zero filler. The second sentence adds relevant use-case context rather than redundancy. Efficient for a simple tool, though not exceptional enough to warrant a 5.

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 a simple 3-parameter set operation and the output schema is present, so return values need no explanation. With annotations covering idempotency and safety, the description is adequate. Missing context includes overwrite semantics and how set interacts with retrieval via rhino_get_user_text, which would strengthen completeness slightly.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The phrase 'key/value pair on objects' maps conceptually to the key, value, and guids parameters, providing some semantic glue. However, it doesn't explain the one-to-many relationship (multiple guids share the same key/value) or that setting an existing key overwrites the value, so compensation is partial.

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 and resource — 'Set a user text key/value pair on objects' — which clearly communicates the tool's function. The follow-up sentence about storing metadata/BIM data/cost information adds concrete context. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation, but the set-vs-get distinction from rhino_get_user_text is implicit in the name and description.

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 usage context ('Useful for storing metadata, BIM data, cost information, etc.'), which tells an agent when this tool applies. However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance — for instance, it doesn't point to rhino_get_user_text for retrieval or rhino_set_name for the name attribute.

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