chamfer_edges_by_geometry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the 'kind' parameter and its sub-options (equal, two_dist, dist_angle) but doesn't disclose what happens with different kinds, whether the operation is destructive, or any side effects. It doesn't explain the geometric filter behavior beyond the kind parameter.

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) and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it's under-specified; the second sentence is a terse list of 'kind' options without context. It's concise but not well-structured for usability.

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?

With 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the geometric filter mechanism, how to use 'parallel_to' or 'min_length_mm', or what the result looks like. The tool is complex (multiple chamfer kinds) but the description provides minimal guidance.

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 explains 'kind' values but doesn't explain other parameters like 'parallel_to', 'min_length_mm', 'name', or the relationship between 'distance' and 'distance2'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's field names.

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 edges of a body by geometric filter, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'chamfer_edges' by adding 'by geometry', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with it. The 'kind' parameter is briefly explained, adding some clarity.

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 versus alternatives like 'chamfer_edges' or 'fillet_edges_by_geometry'. The description implies it's for geometric filtering but doesn't state when to choose it over the simpler 'chamfer_edges' or other edge operations.

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