rhino_drawing_section_cut

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint false, so the agent knows this is not a pure read operation. The description adds that it 'cut[s] a section' and 'place[s] the trace on a sheet', which is some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether original objects are modified, whether a new drawing sheet is needed, or any side effects. 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?

The description is a single, dense sentence with no filler and front-loads the core action. The parenthetical '(bridge only)' is useful. It earns its place, though it could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

This is a fairly complex tool with multiple required geometric parameters (sheet_id, object_ids, plane_origin, plane_normal, target_origin) and no guidance on how to obtain them. The description does not mention preconditions, output expectations, or how the sheet trace behaves. It is far below the minimum needed for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any parameter. The tool has a required args object with sheet_id, object_ids, plane_origin, plane_normal, and target_origin, but the description does not explain what these mean for the section cut. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate; it entirely fails to do so.

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 action (cut a section), the resource (objects), and the outcome (place the trace on a sheet). The '(bridge only)' qualifier adds scope clarity. It does not explicitly name the closest siblings (rhino_section, rhino_section_at_axis), so differentiation is implicit via 'place the trace on a sheet' rather than explicit.

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 provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as rhino_section, rhino_contour, or rhino_drawing_view_place, nor does it state prerequisites like needing an existing sheet or active document. The '(bridge only)' note gives a context restriction but nothing to help an agent choose between this and sibling tools.

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