rhino_box

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

Annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only mutation, and the title 'Add Box (solid)' conveys solid creation. The description adds only the axis-aligned trait, but it fails to explain what 'standalone mode' means, how the tool behaves in other modes, or how doc_id/layer targeting works. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentence with the key action front-loaded: 'Add a rectangular box' appears immediately. No filler or redundancy. It is efficiently sized, though arguably too terse to carry the necessary context.

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 tool with an args object containing seven parameters, the description is too thin. It leaves key ambiguity unresolved: what 'standalone mode' means, whether the result is a solid or surface, and how this differs from rhino_mesh_box/rhino_cmd_box. The output schema covers return values, but the operational context is incomplete.

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, but it only implies three dimensions via 'rectangular box' without mapping to size_x/size_y/size_z. The schema itself carries some useful descriptions (e.g., 'Lower-left-front corner', doc_id behavior), but the tool description adds almost nothing to parameter understanding.

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 ('Add') and resource ('rectangular box'), and the parenthetical 'axis-aligned in standalone mode' adds a distinguishing constraint that helps separate it from mesh_box and subd_box. However, 'standalone mode' is undefined and slightly cryptic, so it doesn't fully nail the purpose.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With dozens of primitive-creation siblings (rhino_mesh_box, rhino_subd_box, rhino_cmd_box, rhino_sphere), the description names no alternatives and gives no selection criteria. The 'standalone mode' phrase implies a distinction but never explains it.

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