rhino_add_clipping_plane

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and 'enter creation mode' discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether the tool blocks waiting for interactive canvas input, requires a prior selection, produces an object, or what side effects it has. The mode-based language strongly implies a non-deterministic, interactive behavior that is left entirely unspecified.

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 brief, but this is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness - the single sentence is vague and does not earn its place because it conveys almost no operational information beyond the tool name itself.

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?

Although the empty parameter list reduces the documentation burden, the description still fails to explain the interactive mode behavior, what the output represents, or how it relates to the overlapping sibling 'rhino_clipping_plane.' The existence of an output schema helps, but the mode semantics and the distinction from the sibling remain significant 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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter documentation burden for the description to carry. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 'Enter clipping plane creation mode' is nearly a tautology of the tool name 'rhino_add_clipping_plane' - both convey the same idea of creating/adding a clipping plane. It adds only the word 'mode,' which hints at an interactive workflow, but it never states what a clipping plane is, what creating one entails, or how this differs from the sibling 'rhino_clipping_plane.'

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?

There is zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Notably, a sibling tool 'rhino_clipping_plane' exists and no distinction is made between the two - an agent cannot determine whether this mode-entry tool or the sibling performs the actual clipping plane operation. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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