rhino_save_script_to_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the destination (temp scripts folder), the return dict shape ('success', 'path'), and the .py auto-extension behavior. However, it does not state whether an existing file with the same filename is overwritten, whether saved scripts persist across sessions, or what failure conditions set success=false – side-effect details that matter for a write operation.

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 well-organized: a one-line purpose statement followed by a minimal Args/Returns breakdown. Every sentence adds information, with no filler or repeated schema content. The linear structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

An output schema exists, so the Return statement is partly redundant, but the description still omits operationally relevant context: what the temp scripts folder is for, how the returned path would be consumed by another tool, and robustness details like collision handling. For a simple two-param save utility this is adequate but not complete – an agent still has to guess the intended workflow.

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 must fully document the parameters, and it does. 'code' and 'filename' are both explained, and filename gets an example and the valuable. py extension auto-append detail. This meaningfully adds to what the bare input schema provides aside from the param names and types.

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 plus resource ('Save a Python code string to the temp scripts folder') and a concrete outcome ('return its path'). This cleanly separates it from siblings like rhino_run_python, rhino_execute_python, and rhino_run_script_file, which execute code rather than persist it. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the save/destination-outcome framing leaves little ambiguity.

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 alternatives. The description never mentions that a saved script may later be run via rhino_run_script_file (or an execution tool), nor does it give conditions where direct execution (rhino_execute_python) would be preferable. An agent gets no help choosing this tool over its closely related siblings.

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