rhino_rebuild_curve

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

The readOnlyHint=false annotation already indicates a mutation, so the description adds little behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose whether the original curve is modified in place, whether a new object is returned, whether the operation is destructive, or what side effects the agent should expect.

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, well-formed sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, then precisely names the two modifying parameters. Every word earns its place.

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 the simple tool shape, the input schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate for invoking the tool correctly. It falls short, though, on usage guidance and on clarifying whether the rebuild replaces the existing curve or creates a new object, which matters for an agent managing object IDs.

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 maps 'point count and degree' to the point_count and degree parameters, adding some meaning beyond their bare schema names. However, it does not mention the required object_id, doc_id, name, or layer, leaving the schema to carry most parameter semantics. With schema description coverage reported as 0%, this is only partial compensation.

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 a specific action ('Rebuild') on a specific resource ('an existing curve') and names the key parameters ('point count and degree'). It is unambiguous against surface-related siblings like rhino_rebuild_surface, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as rhino_cmd_rebuild_curve.

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 about when to use this tool instead of alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools like rhino_rebuild_surface or rhino_cmd_rebuild_curve. An agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and generic wording.

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