rhino_points_off

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly conveys the visual state change and the scope of effect, and 'display' implies no geometric modification. It does not cover edge cases like no selection or error behavior, but for a simple display toggle this is reasonable.

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?

One sentence with no filler or redundancy. The action, target, and scope are all front-loaded and clearly expressed.

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 tool is simple, has no parameters, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core behavior well, though it could strengthen completeness by explicitly noting that objects must be selected beforehand and what happens if none are selected.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context by indicating that the tool operates on the current selection rather than requiring any parameter input.

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 clear action ('Turn off control point display') and identifies the scope ('selected objects'). It unambiguously names the affected resource and can be distinguished from siblings like rhino_points_on or rhino_remove_control_point.

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 does not provide when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. It does not differentiate rhino_points_off from related tools such as rhino_edit_points_off or rhino_points_on, so the agent must rely entirely on the name and general context.

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