rhino_drawing_sheet_create

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

ReadOnlyHint=false already marks this as a mutation, and the description adds what is actually created: a rectangle on the Sheets::<name> layer carrying user_text metadata for name, paper size, and scale denominator. It does not state whether layers are auto-created or whether an existing same-name sheet is replaced, but the core side effect is clear.

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 focused sentences with no redundancy. The primary behavior is front-loaded and the second sentence explains the representation and downstream purpose without filler.

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?

Given the schema covers parameter defaults and the output schema exists, the description supplies the missing conceptual model: what a sheet container is, how bounds and metadata are represented, and why this matters for later tools. A small gap is the absence of any note about layer existence or creation behavior.

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 nested schema already documents name, doc_id, origin, width_mm, height_mm, and scale_denominator. The description adds the useful rationale that paper size and scale denominator are stored in user_text for downstream tools, but it does not explain origin or doc_id and the top-level args wrapper has no description.

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 names a specific action and object ('Create a sheet container') and distinguishes it from generic geometry creation by specifying the rectangle is placed on layer Sheets::<name> with user_text metadata. This clearly separates it from siblings like rhino_rectangle and the drawing tools.

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?

It states the intended context: the sheet container is created so subsequent view-placement, title-block, and export tools can re-derive the sheet. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough to route an agent.

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