Chamfer Two Entities

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

The description does not disclose the default trimming behavior (trim=true) or clarify that the source entities may be modified. Annotations set destructiveHint=false, which may be contradicted by the default trimming action. This omission reduces transparency for a tool that alters geometry.

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 sentences efficiently convey the core purpose and a key limitation. No extraneous information; structure is front-loaded with the main action.

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 omits critical behavioral details such as how the chamfer distances are applied, the effect on source entities (trimming), and the format of the returned line info. While an output schema exists, the description lacks completeness for a modification tool with multiple parameters.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful constraint by stating 'V1 supports LINE+LINE only', which restricts the entity types for handle1 and handle2 beyond the schema descriptions. This extra context improves parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the verb 'bevel', the resource 'corner', and the result 'returns info on the new chamfer LINE'. It also specifies the V1 limitation to LINE+LINE only, distinguishing it from fillet and other modifications.

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 implies usage for chamfering corners, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like entity_fillet. It lacks guidance on exclusions or conditions for use.

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