rhino_object_move_to_layer

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false already signals mutation, so the description does not need to restate it. The description adds one useful non-obvious behavior: the target layer is created if absent. However, it does not disclose other relevant behaviors such as whether objects are removed from their previous layer, whether hidden/locked objects are affected, whether the layer must be visible, or what the return value contains. The added context is limited but present.

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 compact sentence, front-loads the main action ('Reassign objects to layer'), and includes a valuable parenthetical side-effect. It is not bloated, though it could have used the brevity to also mention the tool's relation to near-identical siblings.

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 tool's minimal params (1 wrapper arg), an output schema, and readOnlyHint=false, the description covers the core operation but misses critical disambiguation from the near-duplicate siblings rhino_move_objects_to_layer and rhino_set_object_layer. It also does not explain the return value or whether object_ids refers to IDs obtained from a selector. It is minimally viable for a simple mutation but not complete in this highly crowded tool list.

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 carries the responsibility of explaining parameters, but it names neither 'object_ids' nor 'layer' in the description. The phrase 'one or more objects' and 'a different layer' loosely map to the two required parameters, but the agent gets no explicit parameter-level semantics, no mention of doc_id, and no clarification of the object_ids format. Existing schema descriptions only cover doc_id, not the main parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Reassign') and clearly identifies the resource ('one or more objects') and the target ('a different layer'), with an added side-effect note ('creating it if absent'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling rhino_move_objects_to_layer or rhino_set_object_layer, which have nearly the same name/function.

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 the highly similar siblings rhino_move_objects_to_layer and rhino_set_object_layer. The description implies batch object-to-layer reassignment, but it does not state whether this replaces those tools, whether the layer must already exist (only says 'creating it if absent'), or which contexts it is preferred in.

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