rhino_cmd_reduce_mesh

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the operation reduces polygons and that allow_distortion permits geometric distortion, but it does not state whether the action is destructive, reversible, or how it affects the original mesh objects. This is a significant gap for a mesh-modifying 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 short and uses a clean docstring format, with the core action stated first and parameters listed compactly. However, the 'controller' argument line adds little value for the agent since that parameter is not part of the input schema, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 mesh-reduction operation with no annotations, the description omits important context such as whether selected meshes are modified in place, whether the operation can be undone, and what constraints apply to polygon_percentage (e.g., valid range). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the tool's mutation behavior and selection prerequisite are not adequately covered.

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 only titles and defaults with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must define both parameters. It does so meaningfully: polygon_percentage is explained as a target percentage of the original count, and allow_distortion is clarified as permitting geometric distortion to meet the target. It also mentions a 'controller' parameter, though that parameter is absent from the schema, which introduces mild confusion.

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 clearly states the verb ('Reduce') and the resource ('polygon count of selected meshes'), making the tool's primary function evident. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'rhino_reduce_mesh', which appears to serve an overlapping purpose, so differentiation is missing.

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 implies the tool operates on selected meshes and targets a polygon percentage, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like rhino_reduce_mesh, rhino_quad_remesh, or rhino_rebuild_mesh. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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