rhino_nurbs_curve

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, and the 'Add' verb is consistent with that (no contradiction). The description adds the control-polygon construction trait, which is genuinely informative, but it never states that the curve approximates rather than passes through those points, nor anything about the target document or object placement.

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?

A single eight-word sentence front-loaded with the verb 'Add'; no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple creation tool, though it could still accommodate a sibling note without becoming verbose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the input schema documents all parameters well. Missing from the definition is the key usage disambiguation against rhino_interpolate_curve and the near-vs-through control point nuance, which an agent would need to choose and invoke the tool 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?

Although the top-level parameter ('args') has no description in the schema (0% coverage signal), every nested property—degree, control_points ('Control polygon vertices.'), layer, doc_id—carries a meaningful description. The description's 'control polygon' phrasing is consistent with the schema but adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('Add a NURBS curve from a control polygon') and the title reinforces it ('Add NURBS Curve from Control Points'). 'Control polygon' differentiates it from interpolation-based curve creation among the many siblings, though it does not explicitly name the closest alternative, rhino_interpolate_curve.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Given a large sibling family that includes rhino_interpolate_curve, rhino_freeform_curve, and rhino_rebuild_curve, the description leaves the agent to infer when control-polygon NURBS creation is the right choice versus interpolation or rebuilding.

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