rhino_set_point_weight

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a 'set' action, implying mutation, but does not mention that it modifies the existing model, that it requires an active selection, what happens if no control points are selected, or the effect of changing weights. The description is too sparse for a mutating operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 action stated immediately. The 'Args' line adds minimal new information and is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the overall length is appropriate and there is no extraneous content.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is adequate at a basic level: it identifies the target, the action, and the parameter. However, it leaves important operational details implicit, especially the requirement for a current selection of control points and the acceptable range/meaning of weight. It is minimally viable but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says weight is a 'Control point weight value,' which adds little beyond the parameter name and title. It does not explain valid ranges, the meaning of a weight relative to the default of 2, or the geometric effect of higher or lower weights.

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 verb ('Set'), the resource ('weight of selected NURBS control points'), and the relevant geometry type ('rational surfaces/curves'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rhino_set_control_points, which sets positions rather than weights.

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 communicates that this acts on selected NURBS control points and is relevant to rational geometry, giving useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related alternatives such as rhino_set_control_points or rhino_add_control_point, nor does it state preconditions like ensuring control points are selected first.

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