bevel_edges

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses clamping behavior ('Overlapping bevels are clamped, and one tight edge limits every bevel of the call'), the exact returned fields (width, achieved_width, clamped, warning) and post-operation cleanup (merged_vertices, removed_zero_faces). This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loads purpose then parameters then behavior/return values, with no truly wasted sentence. The prose is dense and run-on (nested parentheticals, mid-sentence field lists), which slightly hurts scannability, but the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

For a 7-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers selection conditions, units, defaults, failure/clamping semantics and the returned fields. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it explains most params: `where` (x/y/z ranges and box), `width` (metres, default 0.02 m, smaller on sub-0.3 m objects), `segments` (1 = chamfer, 3 = round), `profile` (0.5 = circular) and one `width_type` value. It leaves the other four enum values (offset, depth, percent, absolute) and the `segments` default of 2 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+resource ('Round or chamfer the edges') with a clear selection condition ('sharper than `angle` degrees'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like subdivide, inset_faces or solidify. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 preconditions and scoping: edges must be sharper than `angle`, optionally restricted to a `where` box, and 'Only edges with two faces can be bevelled.' It does not name alternatives or state when NOT to use it (e.g. vs subdivide/inset), so it falls short of explicit routing.

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