Trim Rhino objects interactively by selecting cutting objects to precisely edit your model geometry.
Trim objects using selected cutting objects (interactive).
Args:
controller: RhinoController instance.
Returns:
Dict with command result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 reveals the tool is interactive and returns a command result, but it does not mention that trimming is likely destructive, whether it depends on current selection, how the interactive prompt proceeds, or whether undo is available.
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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args/Returns block is somewhat generic, but it does not bloat the description. It is concise, though the boilerplate adds limited value.
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 an interactive, likely destructive editing tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the cutting objects are selected, what happens to the trimmed objects, whether the operation is reversible, or what the agent should expect during interaction. This is not enough guidance for safe and correct use.
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?
The input schema is empty and there are no parameters, so there is little to document. The description adds useful context by mentioning a required RhinoController instance and implying the geometry comes from the current interactive selection, which helps the agent understand why no explicit geometry parameters exist.
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 action ('Trim objects') and the mechanism ('using selected cutting objects'), and notes it is interactive. It is easy to understand what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related sibling tools such as rhino_split, rhino_refit_trim, rhino_untrim, or rhino_mesh_trim.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. The word 'interactive' hints that user selection is involved, but there are no explicit when-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or excluded scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.