rhino_rebuild

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates that the tool rebuilds with point count and degree, and does not disclose whether the operation modifies objects in place, is destructive, requires undo consideration, or how failures are handled.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the overall docstring is compact. However, the Args/Returns sections partly duplicate schema information, and the 'controller' line adds noise since it does not correspond to an actual input parameter.

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?

With no annotations and a broad name among many rebuild-related siblings, the description lacks prerequisites, selection behavior, and parameter constraints. The output schema may clarify return values, but the missing operational context is significant for correct tool invocation.

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. It gives only terse definitions ('Number of control points', 'NURBS degree') and omits constraints such as valid ranges, minimum point counts, or the relationship between degree and point_count. It also mentions a 'controller' argument that is not present in the input schema, which could confuse an agent.

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 tool rebuilds selected curves or surfaces with a specified point count and degree, providing a clear verb, resource, and scope. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like rhino_rebuild_curve and rhino_rebuild_surface by its generic 'selected curves or surfaces' scope, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 more specific siblings such as rhino_rebuild_curve or rhino_rebuild_surface. The description implies operation on selected objects but does not state that a selection must first exist, how selection is performed, or what happens if nothing is selected.

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