bevel_mesh

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds the bmesh context, which implies direct mesh manipulation, but doesn't specify side effects like whether UVs are preserved or if the operation is reversible.

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, with one sentence conveying the core idea. It is efficiently written but lacks additional structure or examples that could aid understanding without adding length.

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 tool with four parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the effect of width and segments, what happens to the object, or how the output is structured. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but the parameter semantics and usage context are insufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at the 'affect' parameter with 'edge atau vertex'. Width, segments, and object_name are not explained, leaving the schema to carry the burden without semantic 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 clearly specifies the action (bevel), the resources (edges or vertices), and the method (bmesh). It distinguishes itself from other mesh tools by its unique purpose, although it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the name and description.

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