rhino_sweep2

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

The description does not contradict the annotations, but it also adds no behavioral detail beyond the bare operation. It does not disclose that a new surface is created, whether the input profiles and rails are left intact, or what side effects occur.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It loses a point because it is terse to the point of omitting useful detail, though that is largely a completeness concern rather than a conciseness issue.

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 an output schema exists and the required parameters are present in the input schema, the description is too sparse for confident selection and invocation among many surface-creation siblings. It fails to mention that the result is a surface, how profiles relate to the two rails, or any creation side effects.

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 needed to compensate, but it only rephrases the property titles: two rails and profiles. It adds no guidance about rail1_id, rail2_id, profile_ids ordering, optional name/layer/doc_id, or how the IDs should be obtained.

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 clear operation, 'Sweep profiles along two rails,' which is more specific than a tautology and implicitly distinguishes this from sweep1 by mentioning two rails. It does not explicitly name the resulting object type or closest sibling alternatives, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose sweep2 over rhino_sweep1, rhino_loft, rhino_network_surface, or rhino_subd_sweep2. The sentence describes what the tool does but provides no context for selection, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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