rhino_merge_surfaces

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

Annotations include only a title, with no readOnly or destructive hints. The description says 'merge' but does not disclose whether the input surfaces are consumed, whether the operation is reversible, how tolerance affects the result, or whether any model state is mutated. The full burden falls on the description, and it does not carry it.

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 clear sentence with no filler. It is appropriately brief for a simple tool, though it could have added a short usage note 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?

The description is minimal and leaves key selection and safety context unaddressed. With many surface-related siblings and no behavioral annotations, an agent cannot tell when this tool is the right choice or what side effects to expect. The output schema helps with return shape but not with decision-making.

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 no parameter-level meaning, but the input schema itself documents surface_ids as 'GUIDs of surfaces to merge' and tolerance as 'Merge tolerance,' with constraints like minItems: 2. The schema covers the basics, so the description does not need to repeat them, though it also does not clarify tolerance units or effect.

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 and resource: 'Merge multiple surfaces into a single surface.' It clearly conveys the core operation and result. However, it does not distinguish this from closely related sibling tools such as rhino_merge_all_faces, rhino_merge_all_coplanar_faces, rhino_join, or rhino_stitch.

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 alternatives like join, stitch, or merge_all_faces. The description states the operation but gives no context about prerequisites, adjacency requirements, or conditions that would make this tool preferable.

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