rhino_unroll

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

Annotations provide only a title and no readOnly or destructive hints, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It says the surface is unrolled flat but does not disclose whether this creates new geometry, modifies the original, or how non-developable inputs are handled.

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 one focused sentence with no filler. The verb, resource, and key condition 'developable' are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple one-parameter command with an output schema, the description conveys the core operation adequately. However, it omits practical details such as failure on non-developable surfaces, whether the original geometry is preserved, and what the unrolled result consists of beyond being flat.

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 description adds no explicit parameter-level guidance, but the input schema already documents both object_id and explode meaningfully. The word 'developable' indirectly reinforces what object_id should reference, though behavior of the explode option is not expanded beyond the schema.

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, 'Unroll', with a clear resource, 'a developable surface or polysurface', and states the intended outcome, 'flat'. It is distinct from the many surface creation and editing sibling tools because only this tool performs unrolling.

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 clear context: use this tool when you have a developable surface or polysurface and want it flattened. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools for non-developable or other flattening scenarios, so it stops short of a full 5.

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