chamfer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation on a solid, but it does not explain whether the solid is modified in place or a new result is created (`result_name`), what happens if `edges` is null, or what permissions/state are required.

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 are front-loaded with the core operation and key parameter semantics, with no filler. Every clause contributes directly to understanding what the tool does.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition omits too much: target solid naming, edge defaults, result behavior, and prerequisites are all unspecified.

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%, so the description must compensate for five undocumented parameters. It clarifies `size` as an equal-distance bevel in millimeters and loosely explains `edges` via fillet rules, but `doc`, `name`, and `result_name` remain undefined, leaving most parameter semantics unresolved.

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 CAD operation — beveling (chamfering) solid edges — with the governing dimension (`size` mm, equal distance). It also differentiates edge selection from the sibling `fillet` by saying the rules are the same, so an agent can distinguish chamfer from fillet immediately.

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 references the sibling `fillet` for edge-selection behavior, which gives useful context. However, it does not say when to choose chamfer over fillet, what prerequisites exist (e.g., needing an existing solid), or when not to use the tool.

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