Add a complete bottom-right title block, north arrow, and scale bar to a Rhino sheet. Provide project, title, ISO date, sheet ID, and optional drawn-by or scale text to annotate the drawing.
Add the bottom-right title block, north arrow, and scale bar to a sheet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a non-read-only mutation, and the description adds placement ('bottom-right') and the fact that all three elements are added together. However, it does not disclose whether an existing title block is replaced, whether the active document is modified, or any preconditions. 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes information about the action, the elements added, or their placement.
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 nested input with many fields and 0% schema coverage, the one-line description is thin. It omits prerequisites like an existing sheet, guidance on how the composite tool differs from standalone annotation tools, and behavior of defaults such as add_scale_bar and add_north_arrow. The output schema helps, but the call-side 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 low, and the description does not explain the required title block data such as sheet_id, project, title, and date_iso, or the booleans controlling the north arrow and scale bar. It only names the output elements, leaving the agent to rely on raw parameter names and defaults.
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 the exact objects added (bottom-right title block, north arrow, scale bar), the destination (a sheet), and the action (Add). This clearly distinguishes it from standalone sibling tools like rhino_annotation_north_arrow and rhino_annotation_scale_bar.
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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The agent is not told to prefer this combined tool over adding the components separately, nor what to do if no sheet exists. Usage is only implied by the verb and object, not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.