rhino_extend_curve

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating the operation modifies the curve. The description adds no further behavioral context—it does not clarify whether the curve is modified in place or if a new curve is created, nor does it mention any side effects on the original object. It adds nothing beyond what the annotations provide.

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 sentence with no filler. It packs the core action, parameter, and side options efficiently, making it easy to scan and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 mutation tool with four parameters and only one required, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the style parameter, any prerequisites (e.g., curve must be editable, length constraints), or whether the operation is reversible. Although an output schema exists, the input side is under-specified for an agent to reliably call the tool with correct expectations.

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. It explains 'length' and 'side' (start/end/both), matching those properties, but it entirely omits the 'style' parameter (Line, Arc, Smooth), which critically affects the extension behavior. Given the low coverage, the description should cover all parameters; it only partially does.

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 (extend), the resource (a curve), the parameter (given length), and the scope (from start, end, or both ends). It is specific and distinct from siblings like offset_curve or rebuild_curve, so an agent can understand the core function without opening the schema.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as offset_curve, fillet_curves, or rebuild_curve. The description gives no context about typical use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer when 'extending' is the right operation.

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