Divide a surface into a custom grid of quad, triangle, or diamond panels using U and V counts. Generates panel geometry directly on the selected surface.
Subdivide a surface into panels (quad, triangle, or diamond).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the original surface is modified, whether new panel objects are created, what happens to layers, or any side effects. 'Subdivide' implies a construction action but leaves the operational consequences unclear.
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 clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately terse, though it could have used the saved space to add usage or behavioral guidance.
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 no behavioral annotations, an output schema, and a large sibling set containing several panel-related tools, this one-sentence description is incomplete. It lacks side-effect information, input compatibility notes, and differentiation from similar tools. The output schema may cover return values, so that absence is not penalized.
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 schema already documents object_id, u_count, v_count, panel_type, and layer with descriptions. The description's mention of panel types largely repeats the schema's panel_type description, adding no deeper meaning about valid values, constraints, or relationships between parameters.
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 action ('Subdivide a surface into panels') and names the supported panel types (quad, triangle, diamond), making the tool's core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling panel-related tools like rhino_uv_grid_panels or rhino_panel_frames.
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 alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The phrase 'surface' implies the input type, but the description does not help an agent decide between this and other paneling or surface subdivision tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.