rhino_offset_surface

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds the useful directional detail 'along its normal'. However, it does not disclose whether the operation creates a new surface or modifies the existing one, nor how tolerance affects the result, which is important for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient but perhaps too terse, omitting details that would make the tool more usable.

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?

Given that this is a mutating operation with only readOnlyHint=false, the description lacks key context: whether a new object is created, sign/direction conventions for negative distance, and how it differs from the similar sibling rhino_offset_srf. The output schema helps, but important gaps remain.

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 description explicitly maps 'distance' and 'surface' to the required parameters distance and surface_id. But it adds no meaning for tolerance, name, layer, or doc_id, and with 0% schema description coverage, the optional but relevant tolerance parameter remains unexplained.

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 clearly states the operation (offset), the target resource (surface), and the method (by distance along its normal). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rhino_offset_curve or rhino_offset_mesh.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_offset_srf or rhino_offset_mesh. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about when this is the appropriate surface-offset tool.

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