rhino_block_redefine

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

With only readOnlyHint=false in the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral disclosure: it is a mutating operation and propagates changes to every instance, which warns about scope. The 'bridge only' qualifier also signals availability limitations. It does not cover undo or recoverability, but the destructive replace semantics are clear enough.

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?

One concise sentence with no filler. The core action and the most important side effect are front-loaded, and the bridge-only restriction is appended compactly. Nothing in the description wastes tokens.

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 operation with four parameters and 0% schema description coverage, this is incomplete. The description covers the high-level effect but not prerequisites (existing block name, valid object IDs), what base_point does, or why bridge-only is a limitation. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described, but input behavior is under-specified.

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 needed to explain the inputs. It only indirectly hints that object_ids are the geometry used to replace the block and that name identifies the definition; base_point and doc_id are not mentioned at all. An agent would have to infer object_ids semantics from the tool name and schema titles.

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 uses a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('a block definition's geometry'), and also states the key consequence: propagation to every instance. This clearly differentiates it from block creation tools like rhino_block_define and from instance-level operations. The 'bridge only' parenthetical also narrows the context.

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 purpose statement implies when to use the tool: when an existing block definition must be redefined so all instances update. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions beyond the cryptic 'bridge only', and there are several block-related siblings with overlapping names. The guidance is usable but left to inference.

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