rhino_blend_surface

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

The description only says 'Create,' which confirms mutation (as per readOnlyHint: false), but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as whether it modifies existing objects, creates new geometry, or has limitations. No destructive hint is provided; info on constraints like edge continuity is missing.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action. However, it is too brief to be fully effective, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description itself is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the concept of a blend surface, the effect of bulge, or the role of optional parameters, leaving significant gaps for a complex geometry operation.

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%, yet the tool description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. The 'edge_a_id' and 'edge_b_id' are referenced indirectly ('two edges'), but parameters like bulge, name, layer, and doc_id are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent uninformed.

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 'Create a blend surface between two edges,' specifying the action and resource. However, among numerous sibling surface tools (e.g., rhino_loft, rhino_fillet_surface), it does not differentiate what makes a blend surface unique.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like loft, sweep, or fillet. There is no mention of prerequisites, edge compatibility, or when not to use it.

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