rhino_trim

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the core mutation behavior is disclosed. However, the description adds nothing beyond that: it omits that a portion of the curve is permanently removed, that the side parameter determines which part is discarded, and that the original curve is modified in place. No side effects, failure conditions, or return behavior are mentioned.

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 with zero filler. It is appropriately terse. However, it omits critical context such as the destructive nature and the side parameter, so its brevity borders on under-specification. It earns a 4 for conciseness but not 5 because it sacrifices necessary information for brevity.

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 nature, the existence of a side parameter, and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens to the original curve, what the output contains, or that the cutter must intersect the curve. An agent may not understand that the tool mutates the geometry or that it discards a segment, making the description insufficient for correct invocation without external knowledge.

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 schema itself provides descriptions for each parameter (curve_guid, cutter_guid, side), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter information. The side parameter's semantics ('Which side to discard (0 = first segment)') are somewhat cryptic, but the schema covers it adequately. Overall, the description does not compensate for any missing schema details.

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 ('trim'), resource ('a curve'), and the mechanism ('at its intersection with a cutting object'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like rhino_split (which likely splits without removing) and boolean operations. The intent is immediately 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_split, rhino_boolean_difference, or rhino_join. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the curve must intersect the cutter), nor any exclusions or typical workflows. An agent must infer when trimming is appropriate.

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