Refit trim curves on selected surfaces to improve edge accuracy and surface integrity.
Refit the trim curves of selected surfaces.
Args:
controller: RhinoController instance.
Returns:
Dict with command result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It implies a modifying operation on selected surfaces but does not state side effects, whether it requires trimmed surfaces, what happens to existing geometry, or degree of undo/modification. The generic 'Returns Dict' line adds little.
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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor boilerplate in the Args/Returns lines is redundant with the empty schema and existing output schema, but the text is still compact and easy to scan.
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 surface-modification tool with no annotations and many trim-related siblings, this is under-specified. It omits prerequisites, behavioral effects, and selection requirements, leaving an agent to guess at correct invocation and expected outcome.
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 there is little to document; the 0-param baseline of 4 applies. The description's 'controller' mention is an implementation detail not reflected in the schema, but it does not actively mislead agents about user-supplied arguments.
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 operation ('Refit the trim curves') on a clear resource ('selected surfaces'), so an agent can infer what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate it from related sibling tools such as rhino_trim, rhino_untrim, or rhino_shrink_trimmed_srf.
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 choose this tool over alternatives, what selection state is required, or when the refit operation is appropriate. The description only gives a one-line action with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.