rhino_sweep1

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

The readOnlyHint=false annotation already signals mutation, and the description adds only the high-level behavior of sweeping profiles. It does not disclose whether a new surface is created, whether the input rail/profiles are consumed or modified, or how profile ordering affects the result. No contradiction exists, but the behavioral description is minimal beyond what the annotation and name imply.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the meaning, making it appropriately sized for a straightforward sweep operation.

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 essential operation and the two critical inputs, but it omits prerequisites such as existing curve objects, profile ordering, and handling of open vs. closed profiles. Since an output schema exists, return-value details may not be necessary, but the lack of usage nuance leaves the description only minimally complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does help map the two key parameters: rail_id is the single rail and profile_ids are the profiles being swept. However, it does not clarify profile ordering, whether profiles must be closed or planar, or the meaning of name/layer beyond their self-evident property names.

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: 'Sweep profiles along a single rail.' The 'single rail' qualifier clearly distinguishes it from rhino_sweep2 and the subd sweep variants in the sibling list. An agent can immediately identify what this tool does and when it applies.

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 'along a single rail' gives clear implied usage for one-rail sweeps, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over rhino_sweep2, rhino_loft, network surface, or the rhino_cmd_sweep1 variant. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative tool mentions.

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