rhino_rebuild_curve

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat the destructive nature. It does add the behavioral outcome 'smoother result' and the notion of rebuilding for a new point count/degree. However, it does not disclose whether the original curve is replaced, whether a new curve object is created, or any side effects, leaving some transparency gaps beyond the 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, front-loaded sentence that names the verb, resource, and key parameters without any filler. It is efficient and immediately informative, earning a top score for conciseness.

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?

Given the destructive annotation and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat sufficient but lacks detail on the exact behavior (e.g., whether the curve is modified in place, whether a new curve is returned, or what constraints apply). With many curve-related siblings, more contextual guidance on how this differs from creation or offset tools would improve completeness.

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 three parameters (curve_guid, degree, point_count), so the baseline is 3. The tool description mentions 'point count and degree' and associates them with a smoother result, adding a small amount of semantic context beyond the schema. It does not fully compensate for the schema coverage, but it is adequate.

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 states a specific verb ('rebuild'), a resource ('curve'), and the key parameters ('point count and degree') with a clear goal ('smoother result'). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like offset or extend, which also modify curves.

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 purpose implies a usage context (rebuilding a curve to achieve a smoother result), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or conditions. The agent must infer the appropriate scenario 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.