rhino_drawing_view_place

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the tool is expected to modify or create state, and the description explains that it projects and places geometry. It does not go further to disclose side effects, prerequisites like existing sheets, or whether source objects are altered. The description adds some behavioral context but not extensive detail.

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, tight sentence that immediately names the operation and its main outcome. Every phrase contributes meaning, and the 'bridge only' constraint is usefully included without clutter.

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 rich input schema with descriptions and an output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and availability constraint. It could be stronger by noting that a sheet must already exist and that this tool is for the bridge context only, but the schema supplies the sheet_id origin and the description notes bridge-only usage.

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 reported as 0%, yet the tool description does not compensate by explaining any of the key parameters such as object_ids, sheet_id, target_origin, view_plane, or viewport_scale. It gives no parameter-level guidance beyond the overall Make2D-and-place concept.

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 operation: projecting objects to a 2-D view via Make2D and placing the result on a sheet. The 'bridge only' qualifier adds contextual precision. This clearly distinguishes it from a plain Make2D tool and from sheet-creation 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?

The description implies when to use it: when you want both a Make2D projection and placement onto a drawing sheet. It also notes the bridge-only constraint, which is a form of exclusion. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like rhino_make2d for projection-only use cases.

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