rhino_create_sweep2

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral details beyond the basic operation. It does not state that a new surface object is created, whether input curves are modified, or any side effects. Since annotations only carry minimal safety hints, the description should have provided more behavioral context but does not.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundancy. The key information (sweep along two rails, comparison to single-rail) is front-loaded. 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 description is sufficient for a basic understanding but lacks important context for a complex surfacing tool. It does not mention that it creates a new surface object, prerequisites like valid rail curves, or how it differs from loft or other surfacing methods beyond sweep1. Given the output schema exists (likely describing the result), some burden is reduced, but the description still feels incomplete for agents that need to know when this is appropriate.

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% (tool description has no parameter details), but the input schema itself provides descriptions for all parameters (e.g., rail1_guid, section_guids). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear verb 'sweep' with resource 'cross-section curves along two rail curves'. Explicitly distinguishes from single-rail sweep, which is a sibling tool (rhino_create_sweep1). The agent can identify this tool's purpose without ambiguity.

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 phrase 'Gives more control over the shape of the resulting surface than single-rail sweep' provides a comparative advantage, implying this tool is preferred when more surface control is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or list prerequisites. It gives clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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