rhino_offset_surface

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether the original object is preserved, what happens to the input, or any side effects. It simply restates the operation without clarifying the impact of 'solid' or the creation behavior.

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 extremely concise, one sentence, with the core action front-loaded. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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 has an output schema, so return values are already documented. However, the description lacks important context about input requirements, such as whether the surface must be planar or whether a closed brep is needed for the solid option. It is minimally adequate but could be richer given the operation's complexity.

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 reported as 0%, meaning the description does not discuss parameters. While the schema itself provides descriptions for guid, solid, and distance, the tool description only mentions 'by a distance' and 'Optionally create a solid', which partially covers two of three parameters but omits guid entirely. Given low coverage, the description should compensate but 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 verb (offset), the resource (surface or brep), and the key parameter (distance), plus an optional solid creation. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like rhino_offset_curve, which handles curves instead of surfaces.

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 usage for offsetting surfaces or breps, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., closed brep for solid creation). There is no mention of exclusions or related tools.

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