plasticity_chamfer

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the chamfer is uniform ('equal distance'), and says nothing about whether the operation is revertible, how revision conflicts are handled, or what happens to the original edge geometry.

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 the verb, resource, and magnitude; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too short rather than too long, but the structure itself is clean.

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?

A destructive mutation tool with 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema needs more than one sentence. An agent cannot tell what revision means, what intent does, or what a successful result looks like, so the definition is under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. It implies distanceMm and edgeIds but leaves id, intent, and especially revision (a required string with no explanation of its purpose or conflict semantics) entirely 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 modeling verb (Chamfer) against a specific resource (edge IDs) with a defined magnitude (equal distance in mm). The phrase 'current edge IDs' is slightly awkward, and it does not distinguish chamfering from the sibling operations plasticity_fillet / plasticity_refillet_faces, but the core action is identifiable without opening the schema.

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 indication of when to chamfer versus fillet, no prerequisite that the edges exist or that a revision/ID must be current, and no mention of the destructive nature relative to alternatives. The only implicit guidance is that edge IDs must already exist.

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