rhino_subd_sweep2

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'Create,' which implies a document-mutating operation. It does not disclose how the rail curves are supplied (selection state vs. controller context), what happens if no curves are selected, or whether the tool modifies existing objects. A creation tool with zero annotation coverage needs substantially more behavioral detail.

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 sentence is concise and front-loaded. However, the 'Args: controller: RhinoController instance.' line does not earn its place — it describes an argument not present in the input schema and adds no useful information. Overall length is minimal, so the cost is small.

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?

A two-rail SubD sweep is a moderately complex modeling operation, yet the schema is empty and the description does not explain how the agent specifies or selects the rail curves. With an output schema present, return values are covered, but the missing input mechanism and prerequisites are a significant gap for the description to fill.

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 has 0 parameters, so per the baseline rule this dimension starts at 4. The description's mention of 'controller: RhinoController instance' is slightly mismatched with the empty schema, but since there are no parameters to document, no additional semantics are needed.

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 action and resource: 'Create a SubD sweep along two rail curves.' The terms 'SubD' and 'two rail curves' clearly distinguish it from rhino_sweep2 (NURBS) and rhino_subd_sweep1, though differentiation is implicit rather than explicit. It is not merely a tautology of the name.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool rather than rhino_subd_sweep1, rhino_sweep2, rhino_cmd_sweep2, or rhino_subd_loft. There are no stated prerequisites (e.g., two curves must be selected), no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. Usage context is left entirely to inference from the name and description.

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