publish_to_chestnut

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

With no annotations, the description transparently states that it 'hides collider, scale, mass, and rigid-body details' and explains the behavior parameter. Some side effects (e.g., overwriting) are not mentioned, making it slightly incomplete.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose first, then usage cue, then parameter details. No redundant sentences; every sentence adds value.

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 4 params, no annotations, and an output schema (exists but not shown), the description covers all parameters and provides usage context. However, it does not describe the output or post-publish behavior, leaving some gaps.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds detailed meaning for all 4 parameters: explains guids as Rhino GUIDs, asset_name as human-readable, behavior with enum expansions, and asset_id as stable link. Fully compensates for schema lack.

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 'Publishes Rhino objects to Chestnut using safe semantic defaults' and positions it as 'the preferred publishing tool for normal use', distinguishing it from the sibling 'publish_objects_to_chestnut'.

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 explicitly says 'Call it when the user says things such as "publish that to Chestnut"' and implies it's for normal use with safe defaults. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool for advanced scenarios.

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