rhino_subd_crease

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the core effect, adding a crease that makes edges sharp, but it does not mention that it modifies the active document, depends on the current selection, or can be reversed.

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 main sentence is short, front-loaded, and informative. The extra 'Args:' block is unnecessary and inconsistent with the empty schema, preventing a perfect conciseness score.

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 simple no-parameter mutation the description is almost minimal but lacks important context: the prerequisite that SubD edges must already be selected, behavior if no valid selection exists, and the ability to undo with a sibling tool. The output schema may cover return values, but prerequisites are not addressed.

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 schema declares zero parameters, so there is little to explain. However, the description includes an 'Args: controller' line that names an argument not present in the input schema, which can mislead schema-driven invocation rather than help.

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 names a specific action, 'add a crease,' and the specific resource, 'selected SubD edges,' with the outcome 'making them sharp.' This clearly distinguishes it from the inverse sibling rhino_remove_crease and from other SubD operations.

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?

Usage context is only implied: the operation applies to selected SubD edges. There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention that edges must be pre-selected, and no reference to the inverse operation rhino_remove_crease.

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