Adjust the seam location of a closed surface interactively, solving issues with edge continuity and texture mapping.
Adjust the seam location of a closed surface (interactive).
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?
The description discloses that the tool is interactive, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, it fails to mention potential side effects like document modification, undo behavior, or whether the operation is destructive. The lack of detail leaves the agent unaware of the full impact.
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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. It efficiently states the purpose and the parameter, with no unnecessary elaboration or filler. This is an ideal structure for a tool description.
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?
The description covers the essential facts: what the tool does and the return type. However, it omits details about the interactive nature (how the user interaction occurs) and any constraints or conditions. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is somewhat sparse and could benefit from additional context to be fully complete.
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 only parameter, 'controller', is described as a RhinoController instance. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the parameter is adequately described in the schema and the description does not add significant new information.
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 clearly states the tool's action ('adjust the seam location'), the object it operates on ('a closed surface'), and that it is interactive. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's primary function.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other alternatives (e.g., rhino_rebuild_surface or rhino_reparameterize). No mention of conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.