chamfer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool updates the JCAD document, defaults to the last created object, and returns the document, adding behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not cover all edge cases but gives key operational details.

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 description is structured with a brief intro, parameter list, and warning. While longer than ideal, each section adds necessary information for a 9-parameter mutation tool, so no redundant content is apparent.

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?

The description covers the operation, default behavior, all parameters, return value, and prerequisite call, which is substantial for a complex tool with no annotations or output schema. Minor gaps remain, such as how edge indices are determined or potential side effects.

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%, but the description documents 8 of 9 parameters with meaningful explanations (e.g., shape accepts name or index, color format). jcad_path is only mentioned in the warning, and some parameter details are generic, but overall it adds substantial value.

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 clearly states the tool applies a chamfer operation on an object, making the purpose specific. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'fillet' tool, so sibling distinction is implied by the term 'chamfer' rather than stated.

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?

It provides usage guidance by explaining the default operand (last created object) and warns that users must first call get_current_cad_design to understand document state. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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