rhino_array_rectangular

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false already signals this is a mutation, and the description aligns with that, so there is no contradiction. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotation: it doesn't say whether originals are retained or copied, whether objects are created or replaced, or what the tool returns. No destructive or side-effect context is 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words; '3D rectangular grid' earns its place by adding the dimensionality not present in the tool name. It is appropriately lean, though terse enough that it edges toward under-specification rather than ideal conciseness.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, an existing output schema, and sibling alternatives, the 8-word description is inadequate on its own. It omits whether the original objects are preserved, what the tool returns, prerequisites like existing objects in the document, and how this differs from array_linear/array_polar. The schema covers ranges and defaults, but behavioral and selection context is missing.

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% — only doc_id has a schema description — and the tool description does not compensate. The phrase '3D rectangular grid' loosely implies count_x/y/z and spacing_x/y/z semantics, but no parameter is explicitly explained. The parameter names are partially self-explanatory, but the description adds almost no meaning beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Array'), resource ('objects'), and geometry ('3D rectangular grid'), which is clear and recognizable. It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like rhino_array_linear and rhino_array_polar through the word 'rectangular', though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes rhino_array_linear, rhino_array_polar, rhino_array_on_curve, and rhino_distribute, but the description never mentions them or any selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer when a rectangular array is appropriate.

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