rhino_mesh_trim

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action without mentioning whether the operation modifies the mesh in place, returns a new mesh, requires a specific selection state, or has any destructive side effects. This is similar to the update_drive coding example where an unannotated mutation tool received a 2.

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 main sentence is concise and gets to the point quickly. However, the Args block adds noise and contains inaccurate information about a controller parameter that isn't in the schema, so every word doesn't earn its place.

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 omits critical context for a mesh-trim operation: how the mesh and cutting geometry are selected, what happens to the original mesh, what the output format is despite the presence of an output schema, and any limitations with curves versus surfaces. An agent would likely need to inspect other tools or runtime state to use this correctly.

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, yet description lists an 'Args: controller: RhinoController instance' block, which is not present in the schema. This is actively misleading because it suggests a parameter the tool does not accept via the schema. With 0 params the description should clarify that no arguments are expected, but instead it introduces a phantom parameter.

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 clear verb ('Trim') and resource ('a mesh') with a specific method ('with a cutting curve or surface'), which is precise enough for an agent to understand the core operation. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like rhino_mesh_split or rhino_trim, so it falls short of the 5-level sibling differentiation requirement, but it is not vague.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_mesh_split, rhino_trim, or boolean mesh operations. The description gives no context about selection prerequisites, when a curve versus surface is appropriate, or which sibling tools to prefer in different scenarios.

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