rhino_rebuild_surface

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

Annotations provide only a title with no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does not disclose that rebuilding replaces the surface's control point structure in place, that the original geometry is altered, or that changes are constrained by the degree/point-count relationship. No contradiction with annotations, but nothing beyond the literal meaning of 'rebuild' is revealed.

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?

A 13-word single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero filler. Every word earns its place, and the structure makes the core operation immediately scannable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but this is a mutating surface operation with five parameters, defaults, and ranges plus several similarly named siblings. The definition omits when to prefer it, that the surface is modified in place, and parameter interplay such as point counts needing to exceed degrees. With annotations carrying no safety profile, this is under-specified for reliable selection and 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?

The nested schema actually documents four of the five real parameters (degree_u, degree_v, point_count_u, point_count_v) with concise descriptions; only object_id lacks schema meaning. Although the context signal reports 0% coverage, that appears to count only the top-level args wrapper. The description reinforces the U/V point-count and degree semantics but doesn't clarify that object_id is the surface to be rebuilt.

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?

States a specific verb ('Rebuild'), a resource ('a surface'), and precise scope ('new point counts and degrees in U/V'). This implicitly distinguishes it from curve and mesh rebuild siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the closely named rhino_rebuild_uv or rhino_rebuild, leaving partial sibling ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus rhino_rebuild_curve, rhino_rebuild_uv, or rhino_rebuild. No prerequisites are mentioned (e.g., the target must be a NURBS surface, not a polysurface or SubD). An agent must infer applicability from the tool name alone.

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