rhino_cmd_taper

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 does meaningfully disclose that the taper axis and extent are chosen interactively after launch, a significant behavioral trait not visible in the schema. However, it omits other consequential behaviors: whether the deformation is destructive/irreversible, whether the tool fails or blocks in headless execution, and whether pre-selection is mandatory.

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 reasonably compact and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by the key interactive detail. But it contains redundancy: the angle parameter is described both in the prose and repeated in the Args block, and the docstring-style Args/Returns formatting includes cruft (the controller arg) that has no schema counterpart.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, target objects, interactivity, and a generic return note. It is incomplete in that it never addresses the near-duplicate sibling rhino_taper, states no object-type constraints, and does not warn that interactive picking may hinder automated/headless invocation.

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 must compensate. It adds the unit context 'angle: Taper angle in degrees,' which the schema lacks. However, it also documents a 'controller: RhinoController instance' argument that is absent from the input schema, creating confusion about the actual call signature, and it provides no range, bounds, or example for the angle value.

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 verb and resource: 'Apply a taper deformation to selected objects.' This clearly conveys what the tool does and that it operates on selected geometry. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling rhino_taper, which appears to serve an identical purpose, so the agent cannot distinguish between them from the description alone.

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 usage context by noting that selected objects are the target and that 'the taper axis and extent are picked interactively after the command starts,' which signals this is an interactive command. But it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives, leaving the agent to infer that this tool is appropriate when interactive input is acceptable.

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