rhino_add_point_light

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the additive action and the location, but it does not mention whether a document must be open, coordinate system/units, side effects, or whether the created light is returned, which is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single front-loaded sentence followed by a compact parameter list. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and parameters.

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 additive tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but misses contextual details such as needing an active Rhino document and the units/coordinate system for the position. It also does not mention how it relates to the other light-creation sibling tools beyond the implicit type.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by explaining 'x, y, z: Light position,' which connects the parameters to spatial placement. However, it does not clarify units, coordinate frame, or any constraints beyond the schema's integer type and defaults.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Add an omnidirectional point light at the specified location.' The qualifier 'omnidirectional point light' clearly distinguishes it from sibling light tools like rhino_add_directional_light and rhino_add_spotlight, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool creates.

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 implies usage through the phrase 'omnidirectional point light' but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling light tools. It provides no exclusions or alternative guidance, though the type of light is self-identifying.

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