rhino_split

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

The description does not disclose key behaviors: whether the original curve is destroyed (though destructiveHint is true, the description doesn't confirm it), whether new objects are created, or what the output represents. It adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotation, lacking important context like side effects on the cutter or the result of a failed split.

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 with no unnecessary words or repetition. It front-loads the primary action and object, making it efficient and scannable.

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 modification tool with destructive hints, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, whether the curve is modified in place or if new pieces are produced, or any error conditions (e.g., no intersection). Given the availability of an output schema (not shown), the description should still explain the operation's outcome and requirements, but it does not.

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 parameter descriptions in the schema are minimal ('GUID of the curve to split' and 'GUID of the cutting object'), and the tool description only repeats the concept of a curve and cutting object without adding any extra meaning. No guidance on GUID format, valid object types, or how the parameters relate. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 'Split' applied to 'a curve' at 'its intersection with a cutting object.' This is specific and distinguishes it from similar tools like rhino_trim or rhino_offset_curve in the sibling list. The resource and action are 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_trim, rhino_boolean_difference, or rhino_split alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the curve and cutter must already intersect) or exclusions. The agent receives no context for tool selection.

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