chamfer_edges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions that 'two_dist' needs distance2 and 'dist_angle' needs angle, which is some behavioral detail, but does not disclose side effects, whether the operation is destructive, or what happens on failure. It does not contradict annotations (none), but is insufficient.

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 very short (two sentences), but it is under-specified rather than concise. The first sentence is clear, but the second lists options without context. It is efficient in length but could be more structured to explain the parameters and usage.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with 6 parameters and no output schema. The description does not cover param semantics or usage context, leaving significant gaps. A description should explain the kind options, parameter relationships, and perhaps the effect on the model, but it does not.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all 6 parameters. It only hints at kind and mention of distance2 and angle in the kind line, but does not explain what edge_handles, distance, or name mean. No format or units are given. This is inadequate for a 6-parameter tool.

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 the tool chamfers specific edges by handle, which is a clear verb+resource, but it does not distinguish from sibling 'chamfer_edges_by_geometry' which also chamfers edges. The description mentions 'kind' options but doesn't explain what they mean or when to use them, so it is not fully clear.

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 on when to use this tool vs 'chamfer_edges_by_geometry' or when to choose between 'kind' values. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or typical usage scenarios. Sibling tools like fillet_edges exist, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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