mesh-bevel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states the action without revealing whether the operation is destructive, whether it requires a specific mesh mode, or what side effects occur (e.g., modifying geometry). This lacks critical transparency for safe tool invocation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and target, exemplifying concise writing.

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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description is too sparse to fully guide an agent. It fails to cover essential context such as object targeting (defaulting to active), selection requirements, the effect of offset and segments, or the result of the operation, making it inadequate for reliable invocation.

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, but it does not mention any of the three parameters (object, offset, segments). The schema's titles ('Bevel width', 'Number of bevel segments') provide some clarity, but the description adds no additional meaning or usage details for these parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'Bevel' and identifies the resource as 'selected edges/vertices', clearly indicating a mesh editing operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like extrude, inset, or subdivide, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus other mesh operations, nor any prerequisites such as being in edit mode or having a mesh selection. The only implied context is the mention of 'selected edges/vertices', but there is no explicit when-to-use or exclusionary guidance.

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