bevel_edges

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

Despite annotations already flagging destructiveHint=true, the description adds substantial behavioral context: clamping of overlapping bevels, the 'one tight edge limits every bevel' rule, the returned fields (achieved_width, clamped, warning), and post-processing that removes doubled vertices and zero-area faces. This goes well beyond the annotation layer.

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 and every sentence carries technical information (defaults, return fields, cleanup). It is dense and runs long as a single block, but there is little wasted wording.

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-parameter mesh-mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies return-value semantics and clamping/warning behavior, which is exactly what an agent needs. Coverage of the remaining width_type enum values is the only notable omission.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and does so well: it defines width units and default, segments (1=chamfer, 3=round), profile (0.5=circular), width_type 'width' semantics, and where as x/y/z ranges and box. It omits the other enum values (offset, depth, percent, absolute), leaving a small gap.

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 opening clause names a specific verb and resource: 'Round or chamfer the edges sharper than `angle` degrees', which uniquely identifies a bevel operation. It does not name any sibling (e.g. weld, subdivide, extrude_faces) to disambiguate, so it is clear but stops short of explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage conditions are implied through constraints ('Only edges with two faces can be bevelled', angle threshold, optional `where` filter) rather than stated as when-to-use guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over alternatives like subdivide or inset_faces.

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