rhino_shrink_wrap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It mentions 'selected geometry' but does not disclose whether the original objects are modified or replaced, whether a new mesh is created, what geometry types are supported, or what 'watertight' guarantees are made. The description is a single operation summary, not a behavioral disclosure.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one clear sentence with no wasted prose. However, the 'Args' section includes the phantom 'controller' parameter and the resolution line duplicates what the schema already partially conveys, 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 mesh-generation operation with no annotations, the description should explain selection requirements, what the output object is, and whether the operation is destructive. It does none of this. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but the operational context is still incomplete.

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 description adds some meaning to 'resolution' by calling it a 'Target voxel resolution for the wrap,' which is helpful given the schema's bare 'Resolution' title. However, it also lists a 'controller: RhinoController instance' argument that does not appear in the input schema, which is confusing and misleading for an agent deciding what to pass. No units, range, or effect of the resolution value are provided.

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 a specific operation: 'Shrink-wrap selected geometry into a watertight mesh.' This identifies the verb, the resource, and the intended result. It does not explicitly distinguish this from related mesh tools such as rhino_weld_mesh or rhino_cap_holes, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rhino_cap_holes, rhino_mesh_boolean_union, or rhino_quad_remesh. The description does not state prerequisites, selection requirements, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.

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