rhino_offset_subd

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the offset modifies the original SubD in place or creates a new object, what happens if no SubD is selected, or whether the solid option changes the geometry topology. The Args note that solid creates a 'closed' offset adds a little context but the mutation behavior is undisclosed.

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 description is a single efficient, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core operation immediately. The Args block is compact, though it slightly duplicates schema information and includes a 'controller' parameter not present in the input schema, which adds minor confusion.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a geometry-modifying tool with no annotations, the description omits critical context: how the target SubD is identified (selection state via the controller), whether the original object is preserved, and what distance units apply. An agent could not safely invoke this tool without this information.

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 must compensate. The Args block does explain both parameters: distance as offset distance and solid as creating a solid (closed) offset, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles. However, the explanations lack depth (no units for distance, no elaboration on the closed-offset behavior), so it only partially compensates.

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 verb (offset) and resource (SubD object), and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like rhino_offset_surface, rhino_offset_mesh, and rhino_offset_curve by specifying the SubD type. The optional solid creation is also mentioned, giving an agent a precise understanding of the operation.

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 guidance is provided. The description does not state the prerequisite that a SubD object must be selected, nor does it contrast with alternative offset tools (e.g., use rhino_offset_surface for NURBS surfaces, rhino_offset_mesh for meshes). Usage context is only implied by the name and operation type.

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