nx_create_radius_dimension

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals nothing about the fact that this mutates the open part document, whether the dimension is undoable via nx_undo, what happens if edge_index is invalid, or what pos_x/pos_y/view_id control — significant gaps for a write operation.

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 action and followed by the one non-obvious parameter hint. No filler, though the brevity comes at the cost of coverage rather than from disciplined editing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, but this is still a mutation tool with no annotations and six largely undocumented parameters. The description omits the preconditions an agent needs (open part, active view) and gives no guidance on the positional and naming parameters, so it is not complete enough to call the tool reliably.

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% across 6 parameters, and the description only clarifies one of them (edge_index, including its source and 0-based indexing) plus an oblique reference to 'the given body' for body_id. pos_x, pos_y, view_id, and dim_name are undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving most of the call signature opaque.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a RADIUS dimension') with the target geometry clarified as an edge and the geometric cases enumerated (fillets, arcs, rounds). It implies the distinction from nx_create_diameter_dimension and nx_create_dimension, but never names those siblings, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 gives one actionable prerequisite: edge_index must come from nx_list_edges on the given body, which tells the agent how to prepare the call. It says nothing about when to prefer this over nx_create_dimension or nx_create_diameter_dimension, nor whether a part must be open or a view active.

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