rhino_network_surface

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

The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description's 'Build a surface' aligns with that by signaling a document-modifying creation operation. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotation and the operation itself: it does not mention whether input curves remain unchanged, how tolerances are handled, or what happens on failure. With annotations already covering the read-only distinction, the description contributes little behavioral transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It communicates the tool's core purpose efficiently and reads naturally. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 minimally viable: it names the operation and its distinguishing input type, and the output schema likely covers return values. However, for a surface-creation tool with multiple sibling alternatives and a required U/V curve structure, it leaves gaps around curve-direction semantics, usage prerequisites, and comparison to similar tools. Overall, it is adequate but noticeably incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain parameter roles, but it only says 'network of crossing curves.' It does not clarify that u_curve_ids and v_curve_ids should be the two crossing sets of curves, nor does it explain the optional name/layer/doc_id parameters. The schema's property titles and minItems provide partial structure, but the description fails to add meaningful guidance beyond them.

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 specific operation ('Build a surface') and a distinct input condition ('network of crossing curves'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like rhino_loft, rhino_patch, and rhino_sweep1/2, which use different curve arrangements. An agent can identify this as the Network Surface operation without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'network of crossing curves' implies the use case: when two sets of curves cross each other in a grid-like arrangement. However, the description provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative surface-creation tool to prefer, such as loft, sweep, or patch. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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