rhino_skin_from_sections

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false; the description goes beyond this by naming the concrete construction APIs (CreateRuledSurface and Brep.CreateFromLoft) and by disclosing the return shape in standalone mode (list of surface IDs requiring downstream joining). This is meaningful behavioral detail, though it does not discuss whether source curves are kept or modified.

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 definition is compact and well structured: a one-sentence purpose, then two bullets covering the modes. Every sentence adds distinct information and the key distinction is front-loaded.

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 main operation and even explains output composition, and an output schema reduces the need to document return values. The notable gap is that it never explains what selects 'Standalone' versus 'Bridge', nor does it state prerequisites or orientation requirements for the section curves.

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 real semantic value for the core section_curve_ids parameter: adjacent-pair chaining and the two-versus-three-or-more curve outcome. With a 0% schema coverage signal, it only partially compensates because closed, name, layer, and doc_id are not mentioned, even though those are largely self-explanatory or documented in the schema.

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 specific operation ('Generate a skin') through a specific resource (ordered section curves) and clarifies the two output modes (ruled surface chain vs Brep loft). It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling surface tools such as rhino_loft or rhino_sweep1.

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 standalone/bridge breakdown gives useful context about what will happen at call time, and 'through ordered section curves' implies when it is applicable. However, it never states when an agent should choose this over rhino_loft or another skinning/sweep alternative, so the when-vs-alternatives guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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