rhino_save

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which already signals a write operation, and the description's 'Write' is consistent with that. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation: it does not state that saving overwrites the existing file, that version conversion may occur, or that the path defaults to the previously opened file. The schema hints at these behaviors, but the description itself discloses nothing further.

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 with no filler words. It is immediately readable and front-loads the core action. It earns a high score for conciseness even though it sacrifices detail and context.

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 save operation that has multiple sibling save tools and parameters controlling destination and version, this description is too thin. It doesn't explain the default path behavior, version constraints, or when to prefer this over rhino_save_as/rhino_save_copy. The output schema exists, so return values don't need to be in the description, but the use context and side effects are not addressed.

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% at the top level, so the description should compensate for the opaque 'args' container, but it does not mention path, doc_id, or version. The nested schema properties do have useful descriptions (e.g., path defaults to the previously opened file), but the tool description itself adds no parameter semantics. With low schema coverage, this is a clear gap.

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 clearly states the verb ('Write') and the resource ('the document') with the destination ('to disk'), so the basic action is unmistakable. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like rhino_save_as, rhino_save_copy, or rhino_cmd_save, all of which also involve saving documents. The title 'Save 3DM File' adds a bit of format context but no distinction from the save variants.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus rhino_save_as, rhino_save_copy, or rhino_cmd_save. The description does not mention default behavior (e.g., saving to the currently open file) or any prerequisites such as having a document open. An agent has no basis for choosing this tool over the alternatives.

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