rhino_modify_offset_curve

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains both_sides and cap behavior and states a dict return, but it never clarifies whether this creates a new offset curve, modifies the selected curve, or edits an existing offset object. It also lists a 'controller' argument that is not present in the input schema, adding confusion.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, and each schema parameter gets a concise explanation. The Returns line is generic and low-value, and the controller entry adds noise, but overall the text is appropriately sized.

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 mutation-oriented tool with no annotations, the description omits essential operational context: whether the operation creates or mutates geometry, whether a selection must already exist, and what the returned dict indicates about success or failure. Even with an output schema present, these gaps make the tool hard to invoke confidently.

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?

Schema descriptions cover 0% of parameters, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It usefully explains distance, both_sides, and cap, including the cap condition for open curves. However, it also documents a 'controller' parameter absent from the schema, which creates ambiguity about what the agent should actually provide.

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 ('Offset'), names the resource ('selected curve'), and states the core input ('given distance'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling rhino_offset_curve, which appears to serve the same purpose.

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 rhino_offset_curve, rhino_offset_surface, or other offset-related siblings. It also does not mention prerequisites such as having a curve selected or what happens if multiple curves are selected.

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