rhino_cage_edit

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds that this is a deformation via control cage, but it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive or reversible, how the cage interacts with target objects, or any side effects. The write behavior is implied but not elaborated.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. The 'bridge only' parenthetical adds a useful scope qualifier without bloating the text.

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 modeling operation requiring both target objects and a cage object, the description leaves out how the cage is applied, what constraints exist, and what the tool expects from the cage geometry. The presence of an output schema helps, but the input-side context is under-specified.

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 0%, and the description only mentions 'objects' and 'control cage' at a high level. It does not clarify the roles of object_ids, cage_object_id, or doc_id beyond what their names suggest.

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 ('Deform'), a resource ('objects'), and a method ('control cage'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. The 'bridge only' qualifier narrows scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling deformation tools like rhino_bend or rhino_twist.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other deformation tools, nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid cage object. 'Bridge only' is a scope caveat but not actionable selection guidance.

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