rhino_cmd_bend

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation ('bend deformation') but never reveals whether the original geometry is replaced or preserved, whether the deformation is destructive or reversible, or what happens when no objects are selected — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose statement before the docstring-style Args/Returns sections. Each parameter gets one line and the return value is summarized, though the controller arg is arguably noise for an agent since it is not part of the callable schema.

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 two-parameter deformation tool with an output schema and zero annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return type adequately. It leaves gaps on selection failure behavior, whether objects are modified in place or duplicated, and the relationship to the aliased sibling rhino_bend — making it minimally viable but not complete for an agent choosing between 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 0% — the schema offers only bare titles ('Angle', 'Symmetric') and defaults — so the description must compensate, and it does. It documents angle as 'Bend angle in degrees' and symmetric as 'bend is symmetric about the midpoint,' adding real meaning absent from the schema. The mention of controller, an argument not present in the schema, introduces a small inconsistency.

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 names a specific verb and resource — 'Apply a bend deformation to selected objects' — which distinguishes it from deformation siblings like rhino_twist and rhino_taper. However, it fails to differentiate from the near-identical sibling rhino_bend, which shares the same operation name and would be indistinguishable to an agent selecting between them.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives: no mention of rhino_bend, rhino_twist, or rhino_soft_edit_curve, and no exclusion criteria. The phrase 'selected objects' implies the prerequisite that objects must be preselected, but that requirement is never made explicit and no fallback behavior is described.

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