rhino_untrim

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the core mutation: removing trim boundaries from surfaces. But it does not add context about reversibility, whether the original trim geometry is destroyed, or what happens if no valid surface is selected.

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 extremely concise: one clear action sentence followed by minimal Args/Returns boilerplate. There is no filler, and the key behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 zero-parameter selection-based command, the description covers the primary behavior and target object type. However, it omits useful contextual details such as requiring an active Rhino document, handling of mixed selections, and the no-op/error case when nothing is selected. The output schema exists, so return-value details are not required.

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 mentions 'controller: RhinoController instance,' which is an internal detail rather than a user-facing parameter, but since the tool operates on the current selection, no parameter documentation is needed.

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 opens with a precise verb and object: 'Remove trim boundaries from selected surfaces.' This clearly identifies the action and the resource, and it distinguishes rhino_untrim from related tools like rhino_trim, which adds trims, and rhino_refit_trim, which modifies trims rather than removing them.

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 by saying the tool acts on 'selected surfaces,' which tells the agent that selection must already exist. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer rhino_untrim over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or failure conditions such as non-surface selections.

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