rhino_cmd_patch

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns a dict with 'status' and 'command' keys and operates on selected geometry, but it does not explain that this creates a new surface, whether it mutates the document, what happens with an invalid selection, or how it differs from a direct patch operation. This is insufficient for a tool that performs a geometric modeling 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?

The description is compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by clearly formatted Args and Returns sections. No redundant or filler content is present.

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 simple two-parameter schema and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate: it explains the purpose, the key parameters, and the return shape. However, it lacks usage context, alternative differentiation, selection preconditions, and side-effect disclosure, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing among many similar surface-creation 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?

The input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's Args section adds meaningful value by defining u_spans and v_spans as 'Number of surface spans in the U/V direction' and mentioning the controller argument. It does not provide ranges or guidance for choosing span counts, but it compensates well for the schema's silence.

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 action ('Fit a patch surface') and a clear input source ('selected curves or point objects'). It is more informative than a bare name, though it does not differentiate this 'cmd' variant from the similarly-named sibling tool rhino_patch.

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 alternatives like rhino_patch, rhino_network_surface, or rhino_surface_from_points. The description implies that curves or point objects must be selected, but it does not explicitly instruct the agent on prerequisites or when this command is the right choice.

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