rhino_create_planar_surface

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so no safety profile is hidden. The description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., whether curves are consumed, error behavior on invalid input), but this is acceptable for a straightforward creation tool. No contradiction with annotations.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and the key input constraint. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple creation tool with an output schema present, the description is mostly sufficient. It specifies the required input type, but could mention what happens if the curves are not planar or not closed. Given the simplicity and the presence of an output schema, it is nearly complete.

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 descriptions for all parameters: name ('Object name'), layer ('Target layer name'), and curve_guids ('GUIDs of closed planar curves'), which gives reasonable coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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) and resource (planar surface), and specifies the input condition (one or more closed planar curves). This makes it distinct from sibling tools like rhino_create_surface_from_points or rhino_create_patch, which also create surfaces but via different inputs.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions (e.g., non-planar or open curves) beyond what is already in the description, nor does it reference other surface creation tools. An agent would have to infer usage context from the name alone.

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