fillet_solid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral quirk: 'The edge nearest the camera wins' and the requirement for points to lie ON each edge. It does not mention mutation/undo behavior, but the selected details are genuinely useful.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose and input format, real-world motivation, camera-picking caveat, and verification tip. Front-loaded and free of 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?

The description covers the essential operational details: how to specify edges, the camera dependency, and how to verify the result. An output schema is present, so return values need not be described. Minor gaps remain around radius units and edge cases, but overall it is a well-rounded description.

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 description adds significant meaning to the 'edges' parameter by specifying its structure ([[x,y,z], ...]) and the crucial requirement that each point lies ON an edge. Radius is left implicit, but its meaning is obvious from the tool name and schema; nevertheless, the description does not spell out units or per-edge behavior.

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 starts with 'Round edges of a 3D solid', a clear verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like fillet_polyline. It also specifies the exact input format for edges, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool operates on.

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?

It explains why a printed part needs this ('a sharp inside corner is where the part cracks'), providing context for when to use it. It also gives practical tips about setting the view and checking with solid_volume, but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions.

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