pcb_bevel_polygon_corners

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the auto-clamping of bevels so neighbours don't overlap, the 45-style cut result, that arcs are skipped, that the polygon is repoured after the edit, and the error codes. It stops short of stating reversibility or permission requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then constraints, then Args/Returns in a clean docstring layout. Slightly long, but every sentence conveys operative information and nothing is redundant filler.

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?

Covers purpose, applicability limits, the effect on the polygon, parameter semantics, and error outcomes. An output schema exists, so the Returns block is a bonus rather than a necessity; nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 compensate, and it does: index is explained as 0-based in board iteration order, net_name as a filter that re-scopes which polygons index counts over, and bevel_mils as the per-edge set-back with default 25. The index/net_name interaction is the key non-obvious semantic and it is made explicit.

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 ('Chamfer the corners of a copper polygon pour') and immediately clarifies the mechanism (replace each sharp vertex with two points). It is readily distinguishable from siblings such as pcb_modify_polygon or pcb_repour_polygons.

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 gives an applicability constraint (only straight-outline polygons; arc-containing polygons are left untouched) and error codes, but it never says when to choose this over pcb_modify_polygon or pcb_repour_polygons, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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