rhino_place_grid

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds genuinely useful context: new object IDs are returned in row-major order, the source is preserved, and skip_origin=True leaves the (0,0) cell to the original source. These details go well beyond the annotation, though it omits edge behaviors like what happens when skip_origin is False beyond the schema's own note.

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?

Two tight sentences: the core action is front-loaded, followed by return-order and source-preservation semantics. Every clause earns its place; only minor docstring whitespace padding prevents a 5.

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 parameter-heavy creation tool, the description covers the key non-obvious behavior: exact return ordering, source non-destruction, and origin-cell handling, which pairs well with the richly documented schema. It lacks only usage differentiation from array siblings and any note about grid orientation or failure modes, but these are minor given the schema depth.

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 top-level args parameter has no schema description (0% coverage), but the nested $defs document every property (count_x, spacing_y, base_point, skip_origin, etc.) thoroughly. The description adds semantic context — row-major ordering of returned IDs and source preservation at the origin — which helps interpret results, but it largely restates what the nested schema already conveys for skip_origin.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Replicate a source object on a count_x x count_y grid with given spacing.' This clearly identifies the operation and the grid structure it produces. However, it does not differentiate from closely related siblings like rhino_array_rectangular or rhino_array_on_curve, which an agent might confuse it with.

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 many array/replicate siblings (rhino_array_rectangular, rhino_array_linear, rhino_replicate_along_curve, etc.). The description implies usage through its action statement, but provides no exclusions or alternative-routing hints, leaving selection to inference.

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