rhino_add_text

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. It reveals that the tool creates a text annotation, but does not explain coordinate system assumptions, font handling, z-axis orientation, or effects on the current document. Side effects and return behavior are not disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence followed by a concise Args list. Every line adds meaning and there is no filler. It is slightly repetitive with the schema titles but remains efficient.

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 creation tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential input semantics and even notes model units for height. However, it lacks sibling differentiation and behavioral context such as placement conventions and coordinate system assumptions, leaving some inference to the agent.

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%, and the description compensates by explaining each parameter: text, insertion point coordinates, height in model units, and font face name. It adds useful semantics beyond the schema, though it could clarify coordinate conventions or font fallback behavior.

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: adding a 3D text annotation object at a specific location. It is clear and matches the tool name, but it does not differentiate this tool from the similarly named sibling rhino_add_text_object or rhino_text.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_add_text_object or rhino_text. No exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions are provided. The intended usage is only implied by the action description.

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