rhino_hatch

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

The annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds the 'closed curves' requirement but does not describe side effects, error conditions, or what happens to existing hatches or object settings. It is accurate but very thin.

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 verb-first sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the core action is immediately clear. Its brevity is a strength even though it sacrifices content.

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 tool with five parameters and zero schema description coverage, the description provides only the core action and one input constraint. It omits pattern and layer semantics, behavior on invalid curves, and usage context. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but this description is still incomplete for safe invocation.

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 0%, and the description only hints at the meaning of boundary_curve_ids ('closed curves'). The other parameters—name, layer, pattern, and doc_id—are left undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 verb ('Add') and resource ('hatch'), and clarifies the input is closed curves. It is clear, but it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling tool 'rhino_add_hatch', so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states the action, leaving an agent to guess when it should be selected over similar hatch-related tools.

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