add_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 mentions adapter-support variability and the empty edge_names fallback, but omits that this mutates the model, requires an active document/selection, and how failures are handled; the detailed selection behavior lives only in the schema.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the whole description is two short paragraphs. The sentence 'Chamfers the specified named edges with the given distance' is largely redundant with the opening sentence, preventing a 5.

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, and the input schema exhaustively covers edge selection mechanics. The description gives enough to identify the operation, though it could mention the fillet alternative; given the schema richness, 4 is appropriate.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the SolidWorks edge-name convention and empty-edge_names behavior already documented in rich detail by the schema, adding no new parameter semantics.

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: 'Add an equal-distance chamfer to selected edges of the current model.' It does not name or distinguish the obvious sibling add_fillet, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to choose chamfer over add_fillet, nor any when-not-to-use condition. Only parameter-level advice ('leave edge_names empty to chamfer all edges') is given, which does not address tool selection.

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