rhino_extrude_curve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses meaningful per-parameter behavior ('both_sides: Extrude in both directions symmetrically', 'solid: Create a closed solid (cap ends)', 'delete_input: Delete the input curve after extrusion'), going beyond what the bare schema shows. But it omits the selection prerequisite, says nothing about behavior when no curves are selected, and does not explain when a surface rather than a solid is produced.

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?

One crisp purpose line followed by compact per-argument bullets, with the core action front-loaded. The only waste is the controller line, which duplicates infrastructure not represented in the schema; otherwise every sentence 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?

For a simple 4-parameter tool with an output schema, the operation and parameters are covered well. But without annotations, the missing selection precondition and the unexplained solid-vs-surface outcome condition leave real gaps an agent needs to call this correctly. Adequate, with clear openings for improvement.

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, and it largely does: every schema parameter receives a semantic gloss that the schema titles lack (distance = extrusion distance, solid = cap ends to make a closed solid, delete_input = removes source curve). The minor flaw is documenting 'controller: RhinoController instance' as an arg even though it does not appear in the input schema, which could confuse an agent about the actual parameter set.

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?

States a specific verb ('Extrude') plus resource ('selected curve(s)') and outcome ('solid or surface'), which clearly distinguishes it from rhino_extrude_surface and surface-creation siblings like rhino_loft or rhino_sweep1. However, it never explicitly contrasts with the generic rhino_extrude tool, so the differentiation is implicit rather than named.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_extrude, rhino_extrude_surface, rhino_revolve, or rhino_sweep1/sweep2. It also fails to state the key precondition that curves must already be selected, nor any exclusions (e.g., open vs closed curves). An agent must infer all usage context on its own.

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