Creates symmetric chamfers on selected edges of a body, defaulting to all edges, so you can bevel sharp edges for cleaner 3D models.
Create a symmetric chamfer on edges of a body; default all edges.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | Yes | ||
| body_id | Yes | ||
| edge_indices | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object | Yes | ||
| status | No | success | |
| message | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the chamfer is symmetric and defaults to all edges, but says nothing about mutation/destructiveness, required part state, units, reversibility, or interaction with existing features.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a CAD mutation with an unexplained required parameter.
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 a 3-parameter CAD mutation tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. An output schema exists so return values needn't be covered, but offset semantics, edge targeting, and prerequisites are all missing.
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. It implies body_id identifies the body and edge_indices selects edges, but never explains the required 'offset' parameter — no units, meaning (distance vs. angle), or relation to edge selection.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a symmetric chamfer on edges of a body.' This is clearly distinguishable from most siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with nx_edge_blend, the closest alternative.
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?
It notes the default behavior ('all edges') but gives no guidance on when to use this versus nx_edge_blend, what prerequisites must hold (open part, existing body), or how to target a subset of edges beyond the optional parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.