rhino_blend_srf

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the selection-state dependency (pre-select two naked edges) and the return shape ('Dict with status and command keys'). However, it is silent on whether original surfaces are modified or preserved, what happens when the selection is invalid, and whether this is a destructive operation.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the one-line purpose comes first, followed immediately by the critical pre-selection prerequisite. The Args/Returns sections are minimal and each sentence earns its place, though the template-style formatting adds minor overhead.

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 no annotations, an empty schema, and a stateful selection-dependent operation, the description covers the core essentials: purpose, prerequisite, and return format. But for a geometric modeling operation it omits what happens to the source surfaces, the meaning of 'naked' edges, and error behavior when the wrong edges are selected.

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 has zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description adds value by documenting the controller argument ('controller: RhinoController instance') that is absent from the empty schema, clarifying the required dependency even though it is not encoded as a parameter.

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?

States a specific operation and resource: 'Create a blend surface between two surface edges.' The verb and resource are clear, and the description tells the user it operates on two surface edges. However, it does not differentiate from near-identical siblings like rhino_blend_surface and rhino_blend_surface_edges, which an agent could confuse for this tool.

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?

Gives one essential prerequisite: 'Pre-select the two naked edges before calling.' This is actionable and important since the tool depends on current selection state. But it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over rhino_blend_surface, rhino_blend_surface_edges, or rhino_variable_blend_srf, and no exclusions or fallback advice.

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