rhino_edit_points_off

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

With no annotations provided, the description itself must disclose behavior; it clearly states that only 'edit point display' is turned off, which suggests a non-destructive visual toggle. However, it does not describe what happens with no selection or whether other object types are ignored, and it does not explicitly confirm geometry is unchanged.

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 concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the action and immediately specifies the target and selection scope.

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?

Given zero parameters, an output schema, and a simple display-toggle operation, this one-sentence description covers the action, target, and selection precondition. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it relies on Rhino domain knowledge of what 'edit point' means.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter details for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics are needed.

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 ('Turn off') and names the resource ('edit point display') plus the objects it applies to ('selected curves or surfaces'). The behavior is clear, although it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar-sounding rhino_points_off or rhino_edit_points_on.

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 phrase 'for selected curves or surfaces' implies the tool operates on the current Rhino selection and only on curve/surface objects. It provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over rhino_edit_points_on or rhino_points_off, so usage context is implied rather than stated.

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