rhino_surface_from_points

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

Annotations lack readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Create', implying mutation, but does not explain side effects, error handling, or undo behavior. The description is insufficiently transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero extraneous words. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite a point count of 4 and an output schema, the description omits crucial context: it does not mention the optional degree parameters, name/layer, or what the tool returns. For a surface creation tool, this is insufficient for effective use.

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 includes decent parameter descriptions (e.g., '2D grid of points (rows x cols)') and defaults for degrees. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, achieving a baseline score.

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 (Create), resource (NURBS surface), and input (2D grid of control points). However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like rhino_patch or rhino_network_surface that also create surfaces from points.

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 prerequisites, limitations, or comparison to similar surface creation tools among the extensive sibling list.

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