Merge all coplanar faces of selected polysurfaces into single faces to simplify geometry and reduce face count.
Merge all coplanar faces of selected polysurfaces into single faces.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states the operation and return type but fails to disclose that the tool modifies the document, whether changes are destructive or undoable, or what happens if no polysurfaces are selected. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence conveys the core action, and the Args/Returns lines are standard boilerplate. No redundant information or padding.
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 with no parameters and an output schema, the core action is covered. However, the description omits behavioral context such as document modification, selection prerequisites beyond the word 'selected', and potential failure conditions, making it only partially complete.
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?
There are zero parameters in the schema, so the baseline is 4. The description mentions a 'controller' argument that does not appear in the schema, which is mildly confusing, but no parameter documentation is actually needed.
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 ('Merge') and resource ('all coplanar faces of selected polysurfaces into single faces'), clearly identifying the operation. The word 'coplanar' distinguishes it from sibling tools like rhino_merge_all_faces and rhino_merge_surfaces.
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 when to use the tool: when selected polysurfaces need coplanar faces merged. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no alternatives, and no exclusions, leaving comparison with related merge tools to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.