rhino_add_point_cloud

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says a point cloud is added; it does not disclose coordinate system, units, document requirements, replacement behavior, or any side effects beyond creating the object.

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, direct, and front-loaded with the action. The Args block is useful and there is no filler, though the brevity leaves behavioral and usage context to other dimensions.

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?

With no annotations and only a one-line action, this is close to minimally documented. It does not explain when the tool applies, how coordinates are interpreted, or what result to expect. For a creation tool, this leaves important call context to guesswork.

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 documents that points is a list of (x, y, z) tuples, giving structure beyond the bare schema. However, the schema declares points as type string, so the actual wire encoding is ambiguous and the description does not resolve that mismatch.

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 ('Add'), a resource ('point cloud object'), and the input source ('list of 3D coordinates'). It is distinguishable from siblings like rhino_add_point by the point cloud resource, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 for when to use this tool vs rhino_add_point/rhino_point or other creation tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing, so usage must be inferred.

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