gh_place_slider

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

The annotation only declares readOnlyHint:false, and the description confirms a mutating create action while adding a useful behavioral contract: it returns the new component_id for chaining. This goes beyond the annotation by telling the agent how the output will be consumed in later steps. It does not disclose potential side effects like coordinate validation or canvas state requirements, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second explains the return value and its follow-up use. This is well front-loaded and every sentence 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?

Given the tool's write nature and creation role, the description adequately explains the primary purpose and the return contract. It mentions the relevant follow-up tools, which helps an agent plan a multi-step workflow. It could additionally note that a valid Grasshopper canvas is required, but the output schema and existing annotations reduce the need for extensive detail.

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 description maps 'bounds and initial value' to the min/max/value parameters, and the schema itself provides detailed descriptions for all properties inside args. However, schema coverage is reported as 0% at the top-level args parameter, and the description does not mention x, y, name, or decimals. The partial compensation plus the schema's embedded property descriptions make this adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 action and resource: 'Create a Number Slider on the canvas with bounds and initial value.' This clearly distinguishes it from generic component creation tools like gh_add_component and from modification tools like gh_set_slider. The mention of bounds and initial value uniquely identifies the slider-specific purpose.

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 a clear usage sequence by noting the returned component_id enables subsequent gh_connect_components or gh_set_slider calls. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as gh_add_component or gh_set_slider, nor does it mention exclusions/preconditions like needing an open Grasshopper canvas.

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