blender_mesh_bevel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the edge-targeting behavior and the auto-selection of sharp edges, but it does not state whether the operation modifies the mesh destructively in place, whether object selection or edit mode is required, or what side effects apply.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the key edge-targeting behavior. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 is adequate for selecting the tool and understanding its basic behavior, but with no annotations and no output schema, it omits important operational context such as whether the bevel is applied destructively to the mesh, what happens when no edge_indices are provided, and how sharp edges are determined.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Bevel'), a specific resource ('edges'), and the intended visual outcome ('smooth transitions and rounded corners'). It also mentions the two targeting modes, which clearly distinguishes it from the many other mesh-editing siblings in the list.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when wanting smooth transitions or rounded corners. It also explains the two usage modes (targeting specific edges vs. auto-selecting sharp edges), though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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