rhino_curve_split

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

The description notes that the original curve is preserved, which adds value beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation. However, it does not disclose what happens to the original (e.g., remains unchanged, new curves created) or the format of the output (e.g., list of curve GUIDs).

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 that conveys the core action efficiently. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 mutation tool, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the parameters map to curve domain, what is returned (e.g., list of curves), or any side effects. An output schema exists but is not referenced, leaving gaps.

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 input schema already describes the parameters adequately ('GUID of an existing curve', 'Parameters at which to split'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, and with 0% schema description coverage, there is no compensation.

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 verb ('split') and the resource ('curve'), and adds that the original is preserved, distinguishing it from modification tools. No other sibling tool explicitly splits curves, so it effectively communicates the unique operation.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or situations where this tool is inappropriate.

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