rhino_merge_surfaces

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

The description only indicates a merge operation but does not disclose whether it modifies original surfaces or creates new ones, what happens with the tolerance parameter, or any side effects. Annotations provide no behavioral hints (no readOnlyHint/destructiveHint), so the description carries full burden but fails to deliver.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It could be expanded to include behavioral notes or usage constraints without becoming verbose. The structure is front-loaded but under-informative.

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 has a complex operation (merging surfaces) and an output schema, the description should explain what the output represents (e.g., a new merged surface) and whether it affects the original objects. It fails to provide this context, making it incomplete.

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%, meaning the schema itself lacks descriptions (though the input schema shows descriptions, the context signal indicates coverage is 0%). The tool description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides; it merely repeats the concept of merging surfaces. The description does not explain the tolerance parameter or surface_ids beyond their names.

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 action ('merge') and the resource ('multiple surfaces into a single surface'). However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like boolean union or blend, which could confuse an agent.

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 such as boolean union or blend. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage are mentioned.

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