fillet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose mutation semantics (in-place unless `result_name` is given) and a failure mode (radius too large for geometry yields a clear error). It does not say whether a new object is a copy of the original or what happens to the source object.

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?

Four short clauses, each carrying distinct information (action, edge reference, mutation mode, failure mode), with the core action front-loaded and no filler.

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 described, and the edge/failure/mutation context is present. The remaining gap is the undocumented required `doc` and `name` parameters, which an agent must guess for a 5-parameter tool.

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 all five parameters rely on the description. It explains `edges` (1-based indices or selector string, default all), `radius` (mm), and implies `result_name` semantics, but leaves the required `doc` and `name` parameters entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Round edges of a solid") with the key unit (radius in mm). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling `chamfer`, and it points at `list_edges` for the edge reference format.

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?

Gives concrete operating context: default is all edges, edge references come from `list_edges`, and in-place vs. new-object behavior is tied to `result_name`. It stops short of naming `chamfer` as the alternative when a bevel rather than a round is wanted.

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