rhino_surface_from_points

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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a NURBS surface' states the primary effect, but it does not mention that this adds a new object to the Rhino document, how name/layer handling works, what validation occurs on the point grid, or any side effects or requirements. For a document-modifying operation with zero annotation hints, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: the verb, the result object, and the required input structure are all present. It is concise without sacrificing the core purpose.

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?

Given the complexity of NURBS surface creation and the presence of degree, name, and layer parameters, this description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain the role of degrees, the ordering or orientation of the point grid, or how this creation affects the active Rhino document. The schema provides defaults and bounds, but the description alone leaves important contextual gaps for an agent deciding how to construct a valid call.

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?

Schema description coverage is reported as 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the points are 'control points' in a '2D grid,' which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it says nothing about degree_u/degree_v, name, layer, or how the point grid must be structured, leaving several parameters effectively unexplained in prose.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a NURBS surface' from 'a 2D grid of control points.' This clearly identifies the tool's core function and distinguishes it from curve, mesh, and extrusion tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling surface-creation tools such as rhino_network_surface or rhino_patch, so it stops 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?

The phrase 'from a 2D grid of control points' implies when the tool is appropriate, but no explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus other surface-creation siblings like loft, sweep, patch, or network surface. There are no stated exclusions, alternatives, or conditions that would help an agent pick between this and similar tools.

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