rhino_interpolate_curve

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

readOnlyHint=false already signals mutation, and 'Add' is consistent with that annotation, so there is no contradiction. The description adds modest context by specifying what kind of object is created (an interpolated NURBS curve), but it does not go beyond the annotations to disclose side effects such as modifying the active document, appending a new object per call, or the layer-creation behavior.

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 zero filler; the verb 'Add' leads, and every word contributes meaning. It is efficiently structured, though it could carry additional useful details (e.g., degree default or relation to interpcrv) without becoming bloated.

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?

An output schema exists and the nested schema documents most parameters, so the description need not explain return values. However, the description is thin on selection context relative to rhino_interpcrv, and degree semantics are left unexplained. It is minimally viable for a schema-rich tool but has clear gaps.

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 reported at 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters, and it only loosely maps to the points parameter ('passing through the given points'). It says nothing about degree (range 1-11, default 3), the name/layer options, or doc_id document targeting. The nested $defs carry some descriptions, but the description itself adds little semantic value beyond 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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('interpolated NURBS curve'), and states the defining behavior: the curve passes through the given points. This distinguishes it from control-point-based creation such as rhino_nurbs_curve. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling rhino_interpcrv, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 use case: an agent has a set of points and wants a smooth curve through them. But it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and names no alternatives (e.g., rhino_nurbs_curve for control-point curves, rhino_interpcrv as a command-level equivalent). The agent must infer selection context from the name and schema alone.

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