rhino_replace_block

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full disclosure burden. It states the mutation intent but does not mention preconditions, such as the new_name block definition needing to exist, nor does it describe failure modes or side effects beyond replacing the selected instances.

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 front-loaded sentence followed by a compact Args line. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail beyond the minimal parameter gloss.

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 no annotations and a single parameter, the description leaves important operational context unstated, such as dependence on the current selection, the requirement for an existing block definition, and what happens when the replacement name is invalid. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but it does not fill these gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the 'Args: new_name...' line partially compensates by clarifying that new_name is a block definition name rather than an arbitrary string. It still omits constraints such as the definition needing to exist in the document, so the added semantics are minimal.

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 lead sentence names a concrete verb ('Replace'), the affected resource ('selected block instances'), and the intended result ('with a different block definition'). This is clear and distinct from nearby block tools like rhino_block_redefine, though it does not explicitly name any sibling comparison.

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 provided about when to prefer this over rhino_block_redefine, rhino_block_insert, or rhino_block_explode. The only usage signal is the tool name and the fact that it acts on selected instances, leaving the agent to infer prerequisites such as having an active selection.

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