rhino_block_insert

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

Annotations only indicate it is not read-only; the description adds that bridge mode honors the active layer and links the instance to the definition, which is useful context. It does not describe potential side effects such as requiring an existing definition, unlinking, or affecting undo, so transparency is partial.

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?

Two sentences front-load the core operation ('Insert a block instance...') and then add mode-specific detail. No filler, though the coded identifiers and mode distinction could be simplified for quick skimming.

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 description leaves ambiguity about important call preconditions: it does not state that the block definition must already exist, nor explains how a user decides between standalone and bridge mode. It also does not say what the tool returns on success or failure, relying on the output schema to cover results.

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 must compensate. It explains 'insertion_point', 'scale', 'rotation', and implicitly 'layer' through bridge behavior, but it does not clarify 'name', 'doc_id', 'instance_name', or the default document targeting 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 clearly states the action 'Insert a block instance' and identifies the key inputs (insertion point, optional scale, rotation). It distinguishes itself from sibling block tools like rhino_block_define by focusing on 'instance' rather than definition creation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 explains two internal modes (standalone vs bridge) but does not state when a user should select this tool over block_define, explode_block, or other sibling tools. It lacks when/when-not guidance, prerequisites, or examples.

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