fusion_add_chamfer

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. The description provides minimal behavior context beyond the operation itself. It doesn't mention whether the operation is destructive, reversible, requires a document, or other side effects. The only extra context is the edge_selector format reference.

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?

Very concise, two short sentences. The description is not verbose; it's clear and to the point, though it could be seen as under-specified. For the little it says, it's structured appropriately.

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?

This is a 3-param tool with nested objects (edge_selector) and no output schema. The description is far too thin. For a CAD operation like chamfer, the agent would need at least an example of the edge_selector format, maybe what units distance_mm expects, and whether it mutates the document. The sibling-reference to fusion_add_fillet helps but is insufficient.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters. Param names are somewhat clear (body_id, distance_mm, edge_selector), but edge_selector is an nested object with no definition, and the description only says 'Same edge_selector format as fusion_add_fillet', which adds some value but leaves the agent to rely on a sibling tool's documentation.

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 it chamfers edges, which is a specific verb+resource. However, the description says 'Same edge_selector format as fusion_add_fillet' and the sibling fusion_add_fillet exists, so it's referring to a known sibling, but not distinguishing it beyond that. It is clear but minimal.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, though it implies relationship to fusion_add_fillet. It doesn't explain when to choose chamfer over fillet or other operations, and no prerequisites or context for usage.

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