rhino_cmd_flow_along_curve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the morphing effect and the interactive selection requirement, and the preserve_structure argument hints at how NURBS geometry is treated. However, it does not disclose whether original geometry is replaced, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens when preserve_structure is false.

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, followed by prerequisite, args, and returns. There is no filler, though the Args section partly overlaps with the schema and adds the controller argument that is not part of the input 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 geometry-mutation tool with no annotations and only a vague 'Returns: Dict' contract, the description covers the core prerequisite and one parameter but omits important behavior such as what happens to the original objects, selection order implications, and how this differs from related flow commands. It is usable but not fully complete.

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%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains preserve_structure as 'If True, the original NURBS structure is preserved,' which adds real semantics beyond the schema's title and default. The mention of a controller argument is not mirrored in the schema, but the one exposed parameter is adequately explained.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Flow (morph) selected objects along a curve.' This clearly communicates the tool's purpose and adds the key prerequisite of base/target curves. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like rhino_flow or rhino_replicate_along_curve, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description clearly states the prerequisite usage context: existing base curve and target curve must be selected interactively. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is concrete enough to guide a caller preparing to invoke the tool.

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