Flip the normal direction of selected surfaces in Rhino to correct inverted normals and prepare models for rendering or fabrication.
Flip the normal direction of selected surfaces.
Args:
controller: RhinoController instance.
Returns:
Dict with command result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It makes the core mutating effect clear ('flip the normal direction of selected surfaces'), but it does not disclose prerequisites beyond 'selected', side effects, or error conditions. The mention of a controller argument not present in the schema adds slight ambiguity.
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 core sentence is short, front-loaded, and direct. The 'Args' and 'Returns' boilerplate is vague and partly redundant, but it does not significantly bloat an otherwise concise description.
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 parameterless mutation tool, the description captures the essential action and target. However, it does not explicitly instruct the agent to ensure surfaces are selected before calling, nor does it clarify the distinction from mesh-normal flipping. The return shape is presumably covered by the existing output schema.
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 schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful implicit context by stating the operation acts on the current selection of surfaces rather than on a passed argument. The docstring's controller argument is absent from the schema and does not help the agent.
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 precise action ('Flip') and a specific resource ('normal direction of selected surfaces'). It clearly identifies surfaces rather than meshes, distinguishing it from the sibling tool rhino_flip_mesh_normals.
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 intended usage is implied: call this when selected surfaces need their normal direction flipped. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as directing mesh-normal flips to rhino_flip_mesh_normals.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.