rhino_close_hole

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

Annotations provide no safety or mutation hints, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a modifying operation ('Close (cap)') but does not disclose whether the original object is edited in place, what happens to non-planar holes, whether a cap surface is added to the object, or what the tool returns.

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 main description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. The 'Args: controller' line is arguably unnecessary since the schema defines no properties, but it does not add significant bloat. Overall, it is concise and readable.

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 absence of annotations and an empty input schema, the description must fully explain the tool's behavior and selection context. It only states the operation and target object type. It omits how the target is chosen, whether the modification is destructive, what the result looks like, and how it differs from nearly identical sibling tools such as rhino_cap_holes and rhino_cap_planar_holes.

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 tool has zero parameters in the schema, so the description cannot add much parameter-level detail. The only mention is 'controller: RhinoController instance', which is consistent with the tool being invoked through a controller context. With no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('Close (cap)') and a specific resource ('a planar hole in an open polysurface or mesh'). It is understandable on its own. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the closely named siblings rhino_cap_holes and rhino_cap_planar_holes, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 instead of the similar cap_holes or cap_planar_holes alternatives. No conditions, exclusions, or selection requirements are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and terse description alone.

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