rhino_repair_subd

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing mutation effects. 'Repair' implies modifying SubD objects, but the description does not mention reversibility, which topology issues are addressed, or what happens to the object after the operation.

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 with the core purpose. The Args line for controller is extraneous and potentially misleading given the empty input schema, so not every sentence 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 mutation-focused tool with no annotations and no schema parameters, the description omits important context: what selection state is required, what the operation changes, and what output is produced. It only provides a high-level action statement.

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 parameter details the description must cover. The 'controller: RhinoController instance' line is not reflected in the schema and adds no invocation-relevant meaning, but the zero-param baseline keeps this dimension acceptable.

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 clear action, 'Repair selected SubD objects to fix topology issues', with a specific verb and resource. It identifies SubD objects explicitly, which distinguishes it from mesh repair tools like rhino_mesh_repair and from SubD creation/modification siblings.

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 usage context is implied: use when a selected SubD object has topology issues. However, it does not explicitly describe when to choose this tool over alternatives, how selection should be prepared, or any exclusions.

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