rhino_unify_mesh_normals

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that normals are unified to point outward, but it does not mention whether the operation is destructive/reversible, whether a selection is required, or what side effects may occur on disconnected mesh objects. This is under-disclosed for a mutating operation.

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 core sentence is concise and front-loaded, but the 'Args: controller: RhinoController instance.' line does not correspond to any input schema property and adds noise. The description is short but not every part earns its place.

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 is simple and has an output schema and no parameters, so the description is mostly sufficient for a basic call. However, it lacks explicit selection prerequisites, behavior when nothing is selected, and any comparison to the closely related rhino_flip_mesh_normals tool, making it incomplete for an agent deciding between related tools.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics for user-supplied arguments, and the 'Args: controller' line is an implementation detail rather than a callable parameter. This is slightly noisy but does not misrepresent the actual tool parameters.

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 operation: 'Unify the normals of selected mesh faces to all point outward.' This clearly identifies the verb, resource, and intended result. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related sibling rhino_flip_mesh_normals, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus rhino_flip_mesh_normals or other mesh-normal tools. It also does not mention prerequisites such as having mesh faces selected, or what happens if no mesh is selected. The usage context is left entirely to inference.

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