Add a multi-point leader with optional text to a Rhino document. Provide at least two points to define the leader, and set text, layer, or document as needed.
Add a multi-point leader (with optional text).
| 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 signal mutation via readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'Add' is consistent and adds no contradiction. It does add minor context about multi-point structure and optional text, but it does not disclose how text attaches to the leader, whether the created object is selected, or any side effects beyond creation.
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 zero filler. Every word earns its place, and the core action and optionality are communicated efficiently.
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 creation tool with five parameters and no guidance on text placement, layer/doc targeting, or the relationship to the near-sibling rhino_add_leader, the one-sentence description is insufficient. An output schema exists so return values need not be covered, but the usage context is far too thin for a tool in a catalog of 400+ siblings.
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% per context signals, and the description only hints at the 'text' parameter and the multi-point nature of 'points'. The parameters name, layer, and doc_id receive no explanation, and the leader-specific meaning of the point array (vertices of the leader) is left implicit, though the Point3dModel sub-schema does document coordinate units.
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 ('multi-point leader') and notes the optional text capability, making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the near-duplicate sibling rhino_add_leader in the catalog, which keeps it from 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?
No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description never mentions alternatives such as rhino_add_leader, rhino_annotation_callout, or rhino_text_dot, nor does it state preconditions like requiring an active document. The agent must infer applicability from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.