rhino_match_surface

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

Annotations only provide a title and no readOnly or destructive hints, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies in-place modification by saying 'adjust', but it does not disclose whether the source surface is destructively modified, whether a matching edge must be pre-selected, or what happens to the target surface. This is too thin for a geometry-mutating tool.

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 filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's modest parameter surface.

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 tool that modifies geometry, the description is too sparse. It leaves out behavioral expectations, side effects, and any indication of how the continuity match is applied. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but it does not make up for the missing usage and mutation context.

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 maps 'surface edge' to the surface to modify and 'target surface' to the reference, but it adds no detail about the continuity scale or defaults. With schema description coverage reported as 0%, the description does not compensate for the missing parameter-level guidance, even though the nested schema itself contains some field descriptions.

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 operation ('adjust'), the object ('a surface edge'), and the goal ('match the continuity of a target surface'). It is not a tautology and clearly communicates the tool's purpose. It does not differentiate from the sibling rhino_match_srf, which likely wraps the same command.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus related surface tools such as rhino_blend_surface_edges, rhino_merge_surfaces, or rhino_match_srf. It also does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios.

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