chamfer_edges

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the safety bar is lower. The description does add one piece of context the annotations do not carry — '(undoable)' — and implies edges must be pre-selected, but it says nothing about whether the base shape is altered, what happens with invalid edge names, or permission/selection prerequisites.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the scope and reversibility note. Nothing is padded, though the parenthetical example is the only element doing real work beyond the verb.

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 geometry-mutating tool with five parameters, zero schema coverage, and a sibling that performs a conceptually adjacent operation, so the description should do more. Output schema is present so return values needn't be explained, but the missing parameter semantics and absence of fillet-vs-chamfer guidance leave real gaps for correct invocation.

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 carries the full burden and largely fails. It clarifies only the 'edges' parameter via the 'Edge1' example format; 'size' (presumably chamfer width), 'name', 'doc_name', and 'object_name' get no explanation, and their relationship to the target feature is left ambiguous.

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 gives a specific verb ('Bevel') and resource ('selected edges') scoped to 'a feature or shape', which is more precise than the bare tool name. It stops short of differentiating itself from the sibling fillet_edges (rounding vs. beveling), so an agent must infer that distinction from the name alone.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of fillet_edges as the rounding alternative, even though that is the most likely point of confusion. The only implied usage is that edges must already exist to be selected.

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