rhino_remove_control_point

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the core mutation and target scope, and 'Remove' clearly signals a destructive edit. However, it does not explicitly mention side effects, selection requirements beyond the word 'selected', or whether the operation is reversible/undoable.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes necessary information: the action, the selection prerequisite, and the supported target types.

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 zero-argument selection-driven tool, the description is adequate but minimal. It names the target and action, and an output schema exists to document return values. Missing context includes explicit prerequisites like needing a control point selected in the active Rhino document and what happens if no valid control point is selected.

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 and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter semantic burden on the description. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately needs to add no parameter-level detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove'), a clear object ('selected control point'), and a clear scope ('from a NURBS curve or surface'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like rhino_add_control_point and rhino_set_point_weight by making the removal action explicit.

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 action itself implies when to use it, and 'selected' signals a prerequisite: a control point must already be selected. However, the description does not explicitly route the agent away from alternative tools such as rhino_set_control_points or rhino_soft_edit_curve, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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