Chamfer Two Entities

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

Annotations already signal that the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint: false) and not marked destructive, so mutation is expected. The description adds a version/entity-type constraint and return-type hint, but it does not disclose that the default trim=true behavior may trim or modify the source lines; that key side effect appears only in the schema.

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 tight sentences with no filler: the action and result are front-loaded, and the key limitation is stated immediately after. Every sentence 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?

Given the rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description is largely sufficient: it clearly states the LINE+LINE-only constraint and the new chamfer LINE result. It would be slightly more complete if it mentioned the default trimming behavior or pointed to entity_fillet for arc fillet cases, but those are covered or inferable from structured data.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the structured parameter documentation already explains every argument including trim behavior and dist2 symmetry. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the general line-line context.

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 ('Bevel'), names the resource ('a corner with a chamfer line'), and clarifies the resulting object is a chamfer LINE. The explicit 'V1 supports LINE+LINE only' further distinguishes it from related fillet/trim operations.

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 clearly conveys the intended use case: chamfering a corner formed by two line entities, with the explicit limitation 'LINE+LINE only' acting as a when-not for other entity types. It does not name an alternative like entity_fillet for non-line corners, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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