rhino_subdivide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not reveal whether the original SubD objects are replaced or new ones created, whether the operation is destructive or undoable, or what happens if no SubD objects are selected. 'Subdivide' implies mutation, but the side effects remain unclear.

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 purpose. The Args block is compact, but the controller line is unnecessary and inconsistent with the schema, adding minor noise.

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?

Although the output schema reduces the need to describe return values, the description omits critical context such as selection requirements, side effects, and how it differs from other SubD tools. For a mutating operation with no annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to safely select and invoke the tool.

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 no property descriptions, so the description's 'count: Number of subdivision iterations' adds useful meaning beyond the schema's default-only count field. However, the description also lists a 'controller' argument that is absent from the input schema, which is confusing and undermines the otherwise helpful parameter explanation.

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 verb, 'Subdivide', and a specific resource, 'selected SubD objects', and clarifies the count-based iteration behavior. It is clearly distinct from most sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative to distinguish itself from similar SubD-editing 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?

The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_subd_expand_edges or rhino_repair_subd. It implies a prerequisite that SubD objects are selected, but does not state this explicitly or provide any when-not-to-use guidance.

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