chamfer_polyline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the core operation (bevel all corners with equal distances) but does not disclose side effects, whether the polyline is modified in place, or any prerequisites. This is adequate but lacks depth.

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 sentence, front-loaded, with no wasted words. It conveys the essential operation efficiently.

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 has an output schema, which may cover return values, but the description does not explain the effect on the original polyline, whether it is modified in place, or any failure conditions. For a simple mutation tool, the description is minimal but not fully complete.

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. The phrase 'equal distances' clarifies the 'distance' parameter as a uniform chamfer amount. The 'handle' parameter is implicitly the polyline handle from the tool name, but it is not explicitly defined. Partial compensation.

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 a specific verb ('chamfer'), the resource ('polyline'), and explicitly states scope ('ALL corners' with 'equal distances'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fillet_polyline, which rounds corners instead.

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 clearly implies the tool is for beveling all corners of a polyline, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. However, the sibling tool fillet_polyline exists for rounding, and the context makes the intended use clear.

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