rhino_set_control_points

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

There are no meaningful annotations beyond a title, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Replace' implies mutation, but the description does not state that this modifies the object in place, whether it is destructive/undoable, what happens on count mismatch, or any side effects. The schema clarifies the point-count constraint, but the description itself adds little behavioral context.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and target resource. This is appropriately concise for the operation's simplicity.

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 mutating tool with no safety annotations, the description is too thin. It lacks usage context, preconditions, exclusions, and behavioral caveats. The schema covers parameters, but the description does not adequately help an agent decide when to invoke this tool or what to expect beyond a simple replacement.

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 provides detailed descriptions for points, weights, and object_id, including the requirement that points have the same count and order. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning. Since schema coverage is effectively high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Replace control points of a NURBS curve or surface.' This is clear and aligns with the tool name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like rhino_add_control_point or rhino_remove_control_point, but 'replace' conveys a distinct 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to choose this over rhino_add_control_point, rhino_remove_control_point, or rhino_set_point_weight. Context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and schema.

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