rhino_mesh_box

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, indicating this is a mutation, and the description's 'Add' is consistent with that. However, the description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond the annotations — it does not mention that a new object is created in the active document, how the doc_id/layer targeting works, or that corner/size are in document units.

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 well-front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and object appear first, and the subdivisions detail is appended meaningfully. It is appropriately short, though slightly more information could be packed in without bloating it.

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 a sparse schema and no usage guidance, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the box is oriented/placed, how subdivisions affect the mesh, or how this differs from structurally similar box-creation tools. The output schema partially compensates for return-value concerns, but the invocation context remains underspecified.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter-semantics burden, but it only hints at one aspect ('subdivisions' maps to divisions_x/y/z). It says nothing about the corner point, size dimensions, doc_id, layer, or name parameters, leaving the agent to infer most semantics from property names alone.

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'), a distinct resource ('quad mesh box'), and a key detail ('with the given subdivisions'). Combined with the title 'Add Mesh Box' and the tool name, an agent can tell this creates a mesh primitive, distinguishing it from rhino_box (NURBS) and rhino_subd_box (SubD), though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The large sibling list includes closely related creation tools such as rhino_box, rhino_subd_box, rhino_mesh_from_brep, and rhino_mesh_from_surface, but the description never explains when a mesh box is the right choice instead of a solid or SubD box.

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