rhino_tolerance_set

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation nature is established and the description's 'Set' is consistent with no contradiction. The description adds the '(optional)' nuance for relative tolerance and document-level scope, but it does not disclose persistence of the settings, effects on existing geometry, or influence on subsequent modeling operations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler: verb first, then the specific tolerance kinds, then document scope. Every word earns its place.

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 simple setter with a richly described nested schema and an output schema present, the description plus schema cover the essentials: what is set, which values are optional, and document scope. Missing are minor but useful notes on persistence/effects on existing objects and an explicit pointer to reading tolerances via rhino_tolerance_get.

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 description maps directly to three of the four parameters (absolute, angle_degrees, relative) and flags relative as optional, matching its null default. It omits doc_id, but the visible schema already describes it well ('Document handle id; 'active' targets the current document') and supplies units and constraints for every tolerance parameter.

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 ('Set') with a clear resource: tolerances on the document, and enumerates the exact kinds (absolute / angle / optional relative). This cleanly distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like rhino_tolerance_get and from broader settings tools like rhino_document_settings.

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 description implies its use case (changing document tolerance values) but never contrasts it with alternatives such as rhino_tolerance_get for reading tolerances or rhino_document_settings for other document configuration. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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