catia_chamfer

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that — the single-feature grouping behavior and the edge-identification convention shared with catia_fillet — but says nothing about failure modes, required active container, or whether re-running with the same points creates a duplicate feature.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Chamfer one or more edges as ONE feature') before the edge-addressing and mode details. No filler and no repetition.

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 feature-creation tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the essentials: what is created, how edges are addressed, and the available modes. It stops short of naming the active-body/selection prerequisite or the resulting feature name, which slightly limits completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including defaults and the 'ignored if length2 is given' rule. The description's mode sentence largely restates that, adding only light framing of the two accepted combinations; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb (chamfer) plus resource (one or more edges) and an explicit scope qualifier ('as ONE feature') that tells the agent this produces a single specification-tree feature rather than one per edge. It also anchors itself to the sibling catia_fillet for edge designation, so it is distinguishable from other modeling tools.

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 explains the two chamfer modes and their interaction with the parameters, which is genuinely useful selection guidance, but it never states when to prefer this over catia_fillet or what preconditions must hold (e.g. an active body, existing solid). Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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