rhino_remove_crease

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It states the mutating action and its effect ('remove the crease'/'smooth them'), but it does not disclose failure behavior, what happens with no selection, or side effects. Basic but viable.

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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded, but the 'Args:' section is boilerplate that conflicts with the empty properties object and adds no value. The description is short, but not every line 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?

For a simple selection-based mutation with no JSON parameters and an output schema, the one-line operation statement is close to sufficient. Still, without annotations it lacks details like what happens when nothing is selected or when non-SubD edges are selected. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 properties, so there are no parameters to document. However, the description's 'Args: controller: RhinoController instance' introduces an argument that does not appear in the schema, which can mislead an agent. This outweighs the normal zero-parameter baseline.

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 specific resource ('crease'), and a precise target ('selected SubD edges'), with 'smooth them' clarifying the intended effect. This clearly distinguishes it from the inverse sibling rhino_subd_crease, so an agent can select the correct tool without needing to inspect other schemas.

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 tool's use context is clear: apply it when creases on already-selected SubD edges should be smoothed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no competing alternative tools really exist for this exact operation, so the guidance is adequate.

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