rhino_smooth_polyline

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: it explicitly states that the input is replaced ('the input is replaced'), describes the smoothing algorithm mathematically, and explains the effect of pin_endpoints. This adds significant context for a mutation tool.

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 introductory sentence, a formula, and one behavioral note. No extraneous words. Front-loaded with purpose, then details. Perfect structure for quick parsing.

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?

The description covers the input, algorithm, parameter interactions, output (object_id), and mutation behavior. It lacks error handling or edge case discussion (e.g., invalid curve_id) but is sufficient for a standard smoothing operation.

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 description adds the mathematical formula linking factor and iterations, which is not in the schema. Although the schema already describes doc_id, factor, and pin_endpoints, the description provides deeper insight into their joint behavior. It partially compensates for missing iteration's schema description.

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 'Apply Laplacian smoothing to a polyline (or NURBS curve via its control points)', which is specific and directly conveys the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like rhino_rebuild_curve that also modify curves, missing explicit when-to-use guidance.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., rhino_rebuild_curve or rhino_interpolate_curve), nor does it list prerequisites or constraints such as performance considerations.

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