rhino_duplicate_edge

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

The annotations already indicate that this is not read-only (readOnlyHint false) but not destructive (destructiveHint false). The description adds little beyond stating that edges are duplicated into curves, implying new objects are created without modifying the original. It doesn't disclose any side effects, limitations, or behavioral nuances such as how edge_indices affects the operation. Since the output schema exists, return format is covered, but behavioral details are sparse.

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 gets to the point immediately. It uses no filler words and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity. However, it could be slightly improved by including a tie to parameters or usage, but as a standalone statement it is efficient.

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 to understand the primary purpose but lacks information about how the edge_indices parameter works or how this tool relates to rhino_duplicate_border. With only two parameters and an output schema, the description could have explained the optional filtering behavior. It is minimal and leaves the agent to infer the full API contract from schema comments alone.

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%, and the tool description provides no explanation of parameters. The description does not mention the 'guid' or 'edge_indices' fields, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema property names and their minimal comments. Since the schema coverage is zero, the description was expected to compensate, but it does not.

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 (duplicate) and the resource (edges of a brep), with the outcome 'as individual curves'. It is specific and distinct from sibling operations like rhino_duplicate_border, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate between them. The verb is direct and the resource is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_duplicate_border or when edge selection is needed. No context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or conditions is provided. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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