rhino_helix

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

The annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only, so the 'Add' wording is consistent and not contradictory. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the helix is sampled into a NURBS curve, implying an approximation controlled by sampling density, but does not disclose side effects like active-document insertion or layer creation.

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 wasted words. It captures the core action, object, and representation efficiently.

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 detailed input schema covers the parameters, and the output schema covers return values, so the description need not restate those. However, given the large number of nearby curve-creation siblings and the lack of usage guidance, the description is adequate but not fully complete for confident tool selection.

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 description adds the key concept of sampling into a NURBS curve, which maps to the points_per_turn parameter. The individual parameters themselves (center, radius, pitch, turns, etc.) are described in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them, but it also does not meaningfully clarify their behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specific action ('Add'), a clear resource ('a helix'), and the resulting representation ('sampled into a NURBS curve'). This distinguishes it from related tools like rhino_spiral or rhino_nurbs_curve, though it stops short of explicitly naming alternatives.

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 about when to use this tool versus related curve-creation tools such as rhino_cmd_helix, rhino_spiral, or rhino_nurbs_curve. The only implicit signal is the tool name and the word 'helix,' which is not enough for an agent to reliably choose among the large sibling set.

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