rhino_annotation_revision_cloud

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

The annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, indicating a mutation. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining what a revision cloud is ('bumpy polyline') and that it includes a revision label. The schema parameters (bump_count, bump_radius, revision_no) further disclose shaping behavior, so the description supplements the annotation without contradicting it.

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 focused sentence that states the tool's purpose and key visual characteristics. It's appropriately concise; though it could front-load the revision label aspect, it earns its place with the parenthetical clarification about the polyline appearance.

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?

The tool is a simple creation tool with one nested object parameter, and the output schema exists. The description adequately conveys the purpose, but it doesn't mention whether the revision cloud is added to a drawing sheet or model space, how the label is rendered, or any layer/visibility defaults. This is acceptable for a drawing annotation tool but leaves some usage questions open.

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, but it only explains the overall concept. It doesn't explain what boundary_points means, what bump_count/bump_radius control visually, or what revision_no is for. The param names and schema defaults are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Draw') and resource ('revision cloud (bumpy polyline) around a region of interest with a revision label'). This distinguishes it from general annotation tools like text, dimensions, and north arrows, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 the tool is for marking changed regions on drawings with a revision label, which is a standard drafting use case. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over other annotation tools (e.g., rhino_text_dot, rhino_hatch, rhino_leader) or mention prerequisites like needing a drawing sheet or active document.

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