rhino_set_object_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries all behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the scope ('all currently selected objects') and the mutation (moving to a layer), but it does not say what happens if the layer does not exist, whether the layer is created automatically, whether an empty selection is an error, or whether the change is reversible. For a mutating one-parameter tool, this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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 very brief and front-loaded: the first sentence immediately gives the action and scope. The Args section is largely redundant with the schema but harmless. It has no filler and is appropriately compact for such a simple tool, though the terseness contributes to missing behavioral details.

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?

The tool has only one parameter and the output schema is present, so the call shape is simple. Still, the description omits important contextual details such as whether an invalid or nonexistent layer errors or auto-creates, and it does not explicitly warn that selection must happen first. One or two additional sentences would make it complete enough for reliable invocation.

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%, and the schema only provides the parameter name and type. The description adds only 'Target layer name,' which clarifies that the string identifies an existing destination layer rather than a new layer name. It does not specify exact-match behavior, naming constraints, or whether the layer must already exist, so it only minimally compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 a specific operation: move all currently selected objects to a named layer, with the target layer identified by the required argument. This distinguishes it from generation and analysis tools. However, it does not distinguish it from the very close siblings rhino_move_objects_to_layer and rhino_object_move_to_layer, which appear to do the same thing.

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 phrase 'currently selected objects' implicitly communicates a prerequisite: objects must be selected before calling. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus the other layer-related siblings, no mention that the layer must already exist, and no exclusions or fallback behavior.

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