rhino_skin_from_sections

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only. The description enhances transparency by revealing the algorithmic differences between standalone and bridge modes, and notes that standalone results can be joined downstream. This goes beyond the annotation's basic mutability flag.

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 extremely concise: a single purpose sentence followed by a clear, bullet-like breakdown of the two modes. No superfluous words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 existence of an output schema and sufficient parameter schema descriptions, the description covers the key behavioral aspects. It could be more specific about when to use standalone vs bridge, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 descriptions already cover parameters like section_curve_ids. The description adds valuable context about the behavioral difference based on curve count and the two modes, which is not fully captured in the schema. Schema coverage is reported as 0%, so the description compensates well.

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 generates a skin through ordered section curves. It explains two distinct modes (standalone and bridge) and contrasts them, distinguishing this tool from siblings like rhino_loft by detailing that standalone mode returns a list of ruled surfaces while bridge mode returns a single Brep loft.

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 implies usage scenarios via the two modes but does not explicitly tell when to use this tool over alternatives like rhino_loft or rhino_sweep1. It lacks guidance on prerequisites, limitations, or specific conditions favoring one mode over the other.

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