rhino_rebuild_uv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully carry behavioral disclosure. It does not say whether the surface is modified in place or a new one is returned, which object is affected, or that rebuilding is destructive to the original control-point configuration. The phrase 'in U and V directions independently' is the only real behavioral content, and the description references a 'controller' argument absent from the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded: a clear one-line summary precedes short Args and Returns sections. There is no wasted prose, though 'Returns: Dict with command result' is nearly vacuous and contributes little.

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?

For a geometric mutation tool with no annotations, too much is missing: what object is rebuilt, whether the operation mutates or returns a new surface, how it differs from rhino_rebuild_surface, and the effect of default counts. The output schema covers the return shape, but the operational context is incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must supply parameter meaning, and it does clarify that u_count and v_count are control-point counts per direction. However, it documents a 'controller' parameter that does not exist in the input schema, which can mislead an agent, and it leaves the default values (10, 10) and their significance unexplained.

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: 'Rebuild a surface in U and V directions independently.' This makes the operation identifiable even among many siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from rhino_rebuild_surface, which is nearly identical in name and function, so the distinction is left to inference.

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 rhino_rebuild_surface, rhino_rebuild_curve, or rhino_rebuild. The description doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., a selected surface), when U/V-independent rebuilding is the right choice, or what happens when both params use their defaults.

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