Convert selected NURBS or mesh objects into SubD surfaces using a specified method, such as FromNURBS for NURBS or FromMesh for meshes.
Convert selected NURBS or mesh objects to SubD.
Args:
controller: RhinoController instance.
method: Conversion method (e.g., 'FromNURBS', 'FromMesh').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| method | No | FromNURBS |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 states the basic conversion action but does not reveal side effects such as whether originals are replaced, whether new objects are created, what happens if nothing is selected, or whether the selection is consumed.
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 concise and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a brief Args list. There is no fluff, though the controller reference in Args is not reflected in the schema, slightly reducing clarity.
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 tool description is incomplete for an unannotated mutation-like conversion tool. It lacks usage context, side-effect disclosure, selection requirements, and method constraints. The output schema may document return values, but the description still leaves critical operational gaps.
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 provides examples for method ('FromNURBS', 'FromMesh') and mentions controller, but controller is not present in the schema and method semantics are not explained beyond examples.
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: 'Convert selected NURBS or mesh objects to SubD.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like rhino_create_subd (creation) and rhino_subd_to_nurbs (reverse conversion).
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 implies usage: the agent should call this when there are selected NURBS or mesh objects to convert to SubD. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use this tool versus related SubD tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.