rhino_bend

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

Annotations provide no readOnly or destructive hints, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires specific permissions. It only says 'Bend objects', leaving the agent uncertain about side effects.

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 of 8 words, which is efficient. It could be slightly expanded to include the optional copy parameter without losing conciseness, but it remains concise and focused.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple 3D parameters, object IDs, optional copy) and minimal annotations, the description is too brief. It lacks context on how the bend works, what the 'through point' does, and any relationships to sibling tools, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand its behavior.

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 adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which already documents parameters like start, end, point, object_ids, and make_copy with descriptions. However, the schema coverage signal is 0%, yet actual schema includes descriptions, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Bend objects along an axis through a specified point' clearly states the action (bend) and the mechanism (axis and point), making it specific and distinguishable from sibling deformation tools like rhino_twist or rhino_taper, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 vs. alternatives, such as rhino_twist or rhino_flow, nor any mention of prerequisites or limitations. The description only states what it does without context for selection.

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