Create and register a reusable dimension style for Rhino annotations, defining font, color, arrow size, and text height to keep dimensioning consistent across models.
Register a reusable dimension style (bridge only — Rhino DimStyle table).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating nature is established. The description adds context beyond annotations: 'bridge only' clarifies it is not the native Rhino command, and 'Rhino DimStyle table' identifies the storage target. It does not disclose duplicate-name behavior or overwrite semantics, but with annotations covering the safety profile this is an acceptable gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every clause earns its place, and the key qualifier ('bridge only') appears early. Slightly more substance would improve it, but as a concise statement it is well structured.
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 mutating creation tool with a near-homonym sibling (rhino_dimension_style) and 0% schema description coverage, this is too thin. It does not clarify conflict behavior, prerequisites, or how this tool relates to the sibling. The output schema covers return values, but the missing usage and behavioral context leaves real gaps.
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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It mentions none of them — not even that 'name' is required, or what color, arrow_size, and text_height control. The agent is left to infer meaning from parameter names and default values in the schema.
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?
States a specific verb ('Register') and a specific resource ('reusable dimension style'), and flags the bridge-only scope targeting the Rhino DimStyle table. This partially differentiates it from the closely named sibling rhino_dimension_style, though it never names that alternative or explains the exact relationship.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The parenthetical '(bridge only)' hints at a scope distinction from the native Rhino tool, but the description never names the alternative (rhino_dimension_style) nor states the condition that selects this tool. An agent must infer when the bridge-specific registration path is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.