rhino_curve_split

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

The annotation only sets readOnlyHint=false, so the description's statement that the original curve is preserved adds meaningful behavioral context about non-destructiveness. This helps the agent understand that the operation creates new curve segments rather than replacing the original, which is valuable beyond the sparse annotation.

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 that states the operation, the target, the condition, and the preservation behavior with zero wasted words. Every element earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and preservation of the original, and an output schema exists for return values. However, it does not clarify whether parameters are normalized or in curve domain units, nor does it explain what happens to the resulting curve segments or how this tool differs from generic split/trim operations, leaving meaningful ambiguity for correct 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 tool description needs to compensate for parameter understanding, but it only says 'given parameters' without explaining curve parameter domains, units, or how doc_id/object_id relate. The input schema has some descriptions, but the description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, leaving an agent to rely entirely on the schema.

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 identifies the operation (splitting a curve), the resource (a curve), and the conditions (at given parameters), and it adds the key behavioral note that the original is preserved. It does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish from, but the verb and object are specific enough to separate it from mesh splitting and generic object splitting.

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 should be used when a curve needs to be split at specific parameter values, giving a clear context for the call. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like rhino_split or rhino_trim, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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