rhino_plane_surface

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false indicates a mutating operation, and the description's 'Add' is consistent with that. The description adds some behavioral detail by specifying a finite rectangular trim rather than an infinite plane, but it does not explain side effects like document object creation, layer assignment behavior, or whether the plane is centered on the origin.

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 focused sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the primary action ('Add') and immediately identifies the object type, making it easy to parse.

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?

This is a fairly simple creation tool with an output schema present, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits usage guidance, dimension semantics, and any caveats about plane validity or axis orthogonality, leaving an agent with gaps that must be filled by schema inference.

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 needs to compensate for the undocumented parameters. It mentions 'given plane' but does not explain width, height, name, layer, doc_id, or the relationship between the plane axes and the resulting surface. The nested schema has some property descriptions, but the description itself adds minimal parameter-level guidance.

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 and resource: 'Add a finite plane (rectangular trim)'. The parenthetical clarifies the geometric result, which helps distinguish it from pure curve/subdivision surfaces. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like rhino_cmd_plane_surface, but the action and resource are clear.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_cmd_plane_surface, rhino_patch, or rhino_subd_plane. There are no context cues, prerequisites, or exclusions provided, so an agent must rely on the tool name and general heuristics.

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