rhino_mesh_repair

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that the wizard is launched and does not disclose whether this is an interactive UI process, whether existing meshes are modified, what happens if nothing is selected, or whether any result is returned. The wizard nature is implied but not elaborated.

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 core action is front-loaded in a single sentence, and the description is appropriately short. The 'Args: controller' block adds boilerplate that does not earn its place, preventing a full score.

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 zero-parameter launcher with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient: it names the wizard and the object scope. However, it lacks useful context about interactive behavior, selection requirements, and how this tool relates to neighboring mesh-health, mesh-weld, and subd-repair tools.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no user parameters that need explanation. The 'Args: controller: RhinoController instance' line appears to be internal boilerplate rather than an MCP-exposed parameter, and it does not materially confuse the empty schema. A zero-parameter tool needs little semantic help from the description.

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 action ('Launch') and a clear resource ('MeshRepair wizard') scoped to 'selected meshes,' making the tool's purpose immediately identifiable. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as rhino_report_mesh_health or rhino_repair_subd, 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, whether mesh selection is mandatory, or whether this should complement other mesh-health or repair operations. The phrase 'for selected meshes' only implies a precondition instead of stating it.

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