convert_to_nurbs

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

Annotations already signal destructive behavior, so the description adds value by explaining that failures are reported per object and do not abort the rest of the batch. It also warns that not every object can be converted. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a concise limitation and failure-handling note. The bilingual repetition is slightly redundant but not bloated.

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 single-optional-parameter destructive conversion tool, this description covers the essential behavior, conversion limitations, and error handling. It does not detail the full response shape, but it mentions the 'failures' field, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 fully documents the single 'objects' parameter, including the optional selection behavior. The main tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies because the schema handles the detail.

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 and resource: 'Convert an object to a NURBS surface.' It clearly identifies the target conversion type, which distinguishes it from sibling conversion tools like convert_to_editable_poly and convert_to_editable_mesh without needing to inspect schemas.

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 when the tool is appropriate by stating that plain primitives usually cannot be converted, which is a useful exclusion. However, it does not name alternatives or give explicit criteria for choosing this tool over other conversion tools.

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