rhino_tween_surfaces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the selection prerequisite and the return shape (Dict with 'status' and 'command'), which is helpful. However, it does not explain the side effects on the Rhino document (e.g., whether new surfaces are created and whether source surfaces remain untouched), error behavior when selection is invalid, or whether the operation is undoable.

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 well-organized and front-loaded: the core purpose and selection prerequisite appear before the Args section. The Args/Returns format is efficient, though the inclusion of the schema-missing 'controller' parameter adds slight noise.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the key action, the selection prerequisite, and the output format. But because there are no annotations and no mention of validation behavior or document-level side effects, an agent is left without enough information to fully anticipate the outcome of the call.

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 explain count as 'Number of intermediate tween surfaces to generate,' which is meaningful. However, it references a 'controller' argument that is absent from the input schema, creating confusion about the actual callable interface, and it gives no constraints or range for count.

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 action ('Generate'), a specific resource ('tween/morphed intermediate surfaces'), and a precise input context ('between two surfaces'). It is clearly distinct from sibling surface tools like rhino_blend_surface or rhino_match_surface because it emphasizes morphing between two pre-selected surfaces.

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 gives an explicit and important prerequisite: 'Pre-select the two source surfaces before calling.' This provides clear operational context. It does not, however, name alternative tools or explain when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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