Create a small text dot annotation at a specified 3D coordinate to label and mark points within a Rhino model.
Add a small text dot annotation at a 3D location.
Args:
text: Dot label text.
x, y, z: Location coordinates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| z | No | ||
| text | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the creation side effect ('Add'), but does not mention coordinate system, units, layer behavior, visibility, or whether an object is actually created in the document. This is a thin description for a mutation tool with no annotation safety signals.
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 very short and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by a compact parameter list. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.
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?
For a simple four-parameter tool with an output schema, the basics are present. However, with no annotations and no differentiation from sibling text/dot/point tools, the agent lacks important context about coordinate conventions and when this specific operation is appropriate.
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. It only paraphrases the parameter names: 'Dot label text' and 'Location coordinates.' This adds little beyond the schema titles and provides no detail about units, coordinate space, integer semantics, or behavior when text is empty.
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 a specific action: 'Add a small text dot annotation at a 3D location.' It identifies the verb (add), the resource (text dot annotation), and the location context. However, it does not distinguish this tool from closely named siblings like rhino_text_dot or rhino_add_text, so it misses the differentiation needed for a 5.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_text_dot, rhino_add_text, or rhino_add_point. The usage context is only implied by the name and description, with no exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.