rhino_taper

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

The annotations contain only a title ('Taper') with no readOnly or destructive hints, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that make_copy defaults to false (implying in-place modification of the original objects), which object types are supported (curves, surfaces, solids, meshes?), or how the axis and radii interact. The single sentence adds no behavioral context beyond the nominal action.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and key concepts appear immediately. It is slightly under-sized for a tool with six effective parameters and no other documentation, but purely as a structural matter it is efficient and well ordered.

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?

For a tool with empty behavior annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and an ambiguous naming relationship to rhino_cmd_taper among hundreds of siblings, this description leaves too much to inference. It omits supported geometry, destructive in-place behavior, parameter semantics, and usage boundaries; the existence of an output schema covers return values but not the missing input context.

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 for parameter documentation, and it only partially does. The phrase 'along an axis with start/end radii' adds meaning to axis_start/axis_end and start_radius/end_radius, but object_ids and make_copy are left unexplained, and it does not clarify radius units, which end maps to which radius, or what happens if axis_start equals axis_end.

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 ('taper') with a resource ('objects') and the governing mechanism ('along an axis with start/end radii'), which clearly conveys the core function. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the near-namesake sibling rhino_cmd_taper or related deformation tools like rhino_bend and rhino_twist, so it stops short of full clarity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With roughly 300 siblings including rhino_cmd_taper, rhino_bend, rhino_twist, rhino_flow_along_curve, and rhino_cage_edit, the description gives the agent no basis for choosing or excluding any of them.

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