rhino_create_uv_grid

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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that a point grid is created, but does not disclose whether new point objects are added to the document, how the layer parameter is used, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects on the surface.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and key geometric concept efficiently, which is appropriately concise for the information it provides.

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?

With three required parameters, minimal parameter documentation, and no behavioral annotations, the one-sentence description leaves too much for the agent to infer. Even with an output schema, it lacks guidance on count semantics, layer usage, and when to use this tool over related surface 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?

Schema description coverage is effectively 0% for the nested parameters: u_count and v_count have only titles, and layer has no description. The phrase 'even UV intervals' hints that the counts relate to U/V divisions, but it does not clarify whether counts are points, intervals, or subdivisions, and it says nothing about layer semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and names the exact resource ('point grid on a surface at even UV intervals'). This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like rhino_uv_grid_panels or rhino_evaluate_surface.

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, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. An agent cannot determine from the description whether this is the right tool compared to rhino_uv_grid_panels, rhino_place_grid, or rhino_panelize_surface.

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