rhino_cmd_unweld_mesh

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not state that the operation mutates the selected mesh, whether a mesh must be selected first, whether it can be undone, or what the tool returns. The verb 'unweld' and the angle condition are the only behavioral hints.

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 active sentence is front-loaded and efficient. The Args block adds a small amount of redundancy since controller and angle could be inferred from schema and context, but the overall description remains short and readable.

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 mutating Rhino tool with no annotations, the definition is incomplete: it never says which mesh objects are affected, how objects are selected, or what happens after the operation. The output schema may cover return values, but the invocation context is under-specified.

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), and the description compensates fully for the single parameter: it defines angle as the minimum angle in degrees and links it to the unweld threshold. The controller context is also mentioned, which helps invocation.

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 ('unweld mesh vertices') and a precise condition ('edge angle exceeds the tolerance'), so the core purpose is clear. It loses a point because the sibling list contains both rhino_unweld_mesh and rhino_cmd_unweld_mesh, and the description does not explain what distinguishes this command variant.

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 about when to use this tool versus rhino_weld_mesh or rhino_unweld_mesh, and no prerequisites are stated. The 'where the edge angle exceeds' clause implies a use case, but the near-duplicate sibling makes the missing differentiation a real gap.

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