fillet_edges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains the edge_handles source (list_body_entities) and radius format, but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or any side effects (e.g., feature creation, rebuild requirements). The description is minimal on behavior beyond usage.

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 concise with three bullet-like lines, front-loading the primary purpose and then detailing key params. No wasted words, but the lack of explanation for 'name' and 'is_tangent_chain' is a minor gap in completeness.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain more fully. It covers the primary inputs but misses important behavioral details like mutation impact, prerequisites (e.g., must have a document open?), and effects on geometry. For a tool that modifies geometry, this is incomplete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains edge_handles (list from list_body_entities) and radius (expression format), but does not explain 'name' or 'is_tangent_chain' parameters, which are not described in the schema either. This is a partial compensation, leading to a middle score.

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 clearly states that the tool fillets specific edges by handle, using UI-selection style. It mentions the input types (edge_handles, radius) and distinguishes from sibling tools like fillet_edges_by_geometry, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 indicates when to use this tool: for filletting specific edges by handle, implying geometry-based selection would use a different tool. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives, but the context of 'handle' vs geometry is clear from the sibling names.

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