rhino_origin_set

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

The description discloses the important behavioral split: reference mode stores metadata only, while translate mode shifts every object so the point becomes the new (0,0,0). Because readOnlyHint is false, this behavioral detail matters and is not merely repeating the annotation. It does not mention undoability or doc-level side effects, but the core side effects are covered.

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 compact and front-loaded, with each sentence adding a distinct piece of information. The highlighted mode literals make the two behaviors scannable, and there is no redundant text.

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 mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the main agent-relevant context: what the tool does, the two modes, and the key behavioral consequence of each. It does not explain document targeting or prerequisites, but those are minor given the schema documents doc_id and default values.

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?

The description adds meaning for the mode parameter by explaining its consequences and a use case (geo-referencing). However, with the context signal reporting 0% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate for the `args` wrapper, `doc_id`, or the coordinate-structure expectations; it relies on the schema for those.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set the model base point.' It then distinguishes two modes by their effect, so an agent understands exactly what operation is offered. It is not a tautology and is clearly distinct from sibling tools like rhino_move or rhino_set_cplane.

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 mode guidance gives concrete selection criteria: use 'reference' for geo-referencing without moving geometry, and 'translate' when the supplied point should become the new origin. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use the tool, but for this operation the mode-level guidance is the actionable decision.

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