nx_edge_blend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutating geometry operation. It discloses only the default-edge scoping; it says nothing about whether the feature is undoable, what happens when the radius is geometrically impossible for the local edge geometry, or whether it requires an active part.

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 compact sentence with the action and the scoping default front-loaded via a semicolon. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness leaves no room for the behavioral context this operation needs.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a no-annotation mutation tool at 0% schema coverage the description omits body sourcing, radius units, edge index origin, and failure behavior. An agent can guess the call shape but not the preconditions.

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 does add real meaning for one parameter by resolving the null default of edge_indices into 'all edges', but body_id's provenance (e.g. from nx_list_bodies) and the units/validity constraints on radius remain undocumented.

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 an edge blend (fillet)'), and the parenthetical maps the CAD term to the common one, which is genuinely useful. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearest sibling operation, nx_chamfer, so it falls short of a 5.

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 'default all edges' clause implies usage: omit edge_indices to blend the whole body rather than selected edges. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus nx_chamfer, and no stated precondition such as needing a part open or a body listed first.

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