rhino_rebuild_surface

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

Annotations are minimal (only title), leaving the description to disclose behavioral traits. The description does not specify whether the tool modifies the original surface or creates a new one, nor does it mention any effects, permissions, or side effects. This is a significant gap.

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, making it concise but lacking structure. It omits important context such as default values, behavior, and prerequisites. While not verbose, it is too sparse to be fully helpful.

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 rebuilding a NURBS surface, the description is incomplete. It fails to cover whether the original is replaced, how to specify the object_id, or any constraints on point counts and degrees. The presence of an output schema (unseen) does not mitigate the missing context.

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?

Although the input schema contains descriptions for most parameters, the context indicates schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description adds minimal value beyond stating 'new point counts and degrees', failing to explain the object_id parameter or how parameters interplay. It does not adequately compensate for low schema coverage.

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 ('Rebuild'), the resource ('surface'), and the specific modifications ('new point counts and degrees in U/V'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rhino_rebuild_curve (for curves) and other surface creation tools.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, when to choose rebuild over other surface editing tools, or any limitations.

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