rhino_display_mode_set

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

The annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the scope 'active viewport', which is useful behavioral context. But it does not disclose additional traits like whether the change persists, is undoable, or how invalid mode names are handled. 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 sentence that states the exact action and scope with no filler. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning a top score for 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 simple setter with one required parameter and schema descriptions, the description is nearly complete. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit routing among display-related siblings, but the core call context is adequately covered.

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?

The description itself adds no parameter information, and schema description coverage is 0% from the description's perspective. However, the input schema provides descriptions for both 'mode' (with examples) and 'doc_id' (with default), so the schema carries the weight. The description doesn't compensate or add 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 clear verb and resource: 'Switch the active viewport's display mode.' It specifies the scope (active viewport) and the action, making it clear what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling rhino_set_display_mode, so it loses the top score.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent would use this when it wants to change the display mode of the active viewport. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative to prefer among the many display-related siblings (e.g., rhino_set_display_mode, rhino_display_show_edges).

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