rhino_cmd_rebuild_curve

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral detail. It discloses that the tool acts on a preselected curve and returns a dict with 'status' and 'command' keys, which is useful. It does not discuss whether the original curve is replaced in place, validation limits on degree or point_count, or error conditions, so behavioral transparency is only partial.

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: a one-sentence summary, a key precondition, then Args and Returns sections. The controller line and the repetition of parameter names are minor noise, but overall the structure is clear and economical.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the core operation, prerequisite, parameter meaning, and return key shape, and an output schema exists. It omits decision-relevant information: which sibling it should be chosen over, what values of degree and point_count are valid, and whether the rebuild replaces the original curve. This is adequate but not 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?

The schema contains bare properties with defaults and no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's definitions of point_count as 'Target number of control points' and degree as 'Target polynomial degree' add real meaning. However, the Args section also lists a controller parameter absent from the input schema, creating a contract mismatch, and no ranges or relationship between point_count and degree are provided.

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 opens with a precise action and target: 'Rebuild the selected curve with a specified number of control points and degree.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from surface-related rebuild siblings. It does not, however, differentiate from the nearly identical sibling rhino_rebuild_curve, so it cannot receive full credit.

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 sentence 'The curve must be pre-selected before calling this function' gives a concrete precondition and therefore tells the agent when invocation is allowable. But the description never explains when to prefer this tool over siblings like rhino_rebuild_curve or rhino_rebuild, and it gives no exclusions.

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