rhino_blend_surface_edges

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

Annotations provide no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, so the description must carry the transparency burden. However, it only states the positive action (create) without disclosing whether it modifies original edges, requires any special conditions, or what happens on failure. This is insufficient for a tool creating new geometry.

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 sentence of 9 words, straight to the point without any redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and specific inputs, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity of surface creation and the existence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is quite minimal. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that edges must belong to surfaces, be adjacent) or error conditions. While sufficient for the core function, it lacks completeness for a reliable agent 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?

The description mentions 'connecting two surface edges' which clarifies the purpose of edge_id_1 and edge_id_2, and 'continuity control' explains the continuity parameter. However, it omits any explanation for the optional 'name' and 'layer' parameters, and with schema description coverage at 0%, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 the tool's action ('Create a blend surface'), the specific inputs ('two surface edges'), and a key feature ('continuity control'). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'rhino_blend_surface' which likely handles more general blend scenarios, though not explicitly stated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'rhino_loft' or 'rhino_sweep2'. It lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information, leaving the agent to infer from the name and context.

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