add_chamfer

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful facts beyond that: all geometry is expressed in mm/degrees/kg, and results include verified measurements plus error evidence. It does not say what geometry is consumed or modified, nor that defaulting edges to "all" affects the entire body, which matters for a destructive feature.

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?

Three short sentences with the operation front-loaded and no filler. The final sentence about inspecting measurements is slightly vague in phrasing but still earns its place by hinting at the return shape.

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?

For a destructive 5-parameter modeling operation with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves the most decision-relevant parameters (edges, from_face) unexplained and never describes the error-evidence structure it references. An agent could call it, but only by guessing at edge selection semantics.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It clarifies the unit system for distance_mm and angle_deg (mm, degrees), which is genuine added meaning, but says nothing about edges (default "all", selection syntax), from_face, or the name parameter's role.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Add chamfer") and names the engine that executes it, so an agent knows this creates a chamfer feature rather than, say, a fillet (add_fillet) or full round (add_full_round). It stops short of explicitly contrasting those siblings, but the operation name itself is distinctive enough to route correctly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, what preconditions must hold (an existing body, valid edge references), or which sibling to pick when a rounded vs. beveled edge is desired. The only usage-adjacent content is a unit convention, which is a data convention rather than guidance.

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