rhino_create_patch

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation that is not destructive. The description adds no behavioral details beyond 'create'—no mention of side effects, permissions, or what happens to input objects. Since annotations cover the basic safety profile, a mid-score is appropriate, but the description could add context about document modification or object creation.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and then specifies inputs. Every word earns its place.

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 tool is moderately complex with 6 parameters and a nested input object. The description provides only the basic purpose and two key inputs. It lacks guidance on how u_spans/v_spans affect the result, what the output object is (though an output schema exists), and any prerequisites or limitations. For a tool with this parameter count and no schema coverage, the description is insufficient.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It mentions 'boundary curves' (curve_guids) and 'interior points' (points), covering only 2 of the 6 parameters. It omits name, layer, u_spans, and v_spans, which are important for controlling the surface complexity and organization. This is a significant gap given the 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 states a clear verb+resource ('Create a patch surface') and specifies the input sources ('from boundary curves and/or interior points'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rhino_create_planar_surface (which creates from planar curves) and rhino_create_surface_from_points (points only). The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 when to use the tool (when you have boundary curves and/or interior points) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when NOT to use it. With many surface-creation siblings, clear routing would be valuable, but the input specification provides some context. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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