rhino_annotation_callout

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

The readOnlyHint=false annotation already flags this as a mutating operation, and the description's 'Add' is consistent. The description adds modest structural context (balloon vs boxed label) but does not disclose where the object is created, that it targets the active document by default, or any side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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 single sentence is short, front-loaded, and contains no filler; the parenthetical adds genuinely useful structural detail. It is appropriately sized for a simple creation tool, though it could convey more without becoming verbose.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and the tool is a creation operation, the description is still too thin. It omits the essential knowledge for correct invocation: how target_point and leader_origin relate geometrically, which is the core usage detail for a callout tool. An agent would likely need to infer this from the sibling names and schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage claimed, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it only hints at 'style' via 'balloon or boxed label'. It does not clarify the critical distinction between target_point and leader_origin, nor text, layer, or doc_id semantics.

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') and resource ('a callout') and clarifies the artifact's structure ('leader + balloon or boxed label'), which helps distinguish it from plain leader tools like rhino_leader. It is clear, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling annotation tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_leader, rhino_add_leader, rhino_text, or other rhino_annotation_* tools. There is no mention of when a callout is preferred over a plain leader or text label.

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