rhino_bend

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

Annotations provide no read-only or destructive hints, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the operation modifies objects in place, whether make_copy defaults to false and creates a copy, what happens to the original geometry, or what the tool returns. The word 'bend' implies mutation but leaves key behavioral details unstated.

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 no filler. It is concise and immediately states the operation, though it is perhaps too terse to fully support a complex geometric transformation tool.

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 tool requires object_ids, two axis endpoints, a bend point, and an optional make_copy flag, the one-sentence description is not enough context for an agent to call it correctly. An output schema exists, but it does not replace missing guidance about selection, in-place versus copy behavior, or interaction with sibling transformation tools.

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%, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining object_ids, the start/end axis points, or make_copy. It mentions 'axis' and 'specified point,' which loosely maps to the start/end/point parameters, but it adds little semantic value over the raw schema and omits the copy behavior entirely.

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 'Bend objects along an axis through a specified point' uses a specific verb and resource, and conveys the core geometric operation clearly. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like rhino_cmd_bend or rhino_twist, but the bend semantics are sufficiently clear.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_cmd_bend, rhino_twist, rhino_taper, or rhino_flow_along_curve. There are no prerequisites, selection requirements, or exclusions stated, so the agent must infer usage from the 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.