f360_fillet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral limitation twice: it operates on 'the most recently created solid body' and fillets 'every edge' — an important constraint the agent cannot infer. It omits failure behavior (e.g., what happens when no body exists) and irreversibility/undo 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Slight redundancy between 'all edges' and the closing 'fillets every edge on the latest body', which restates the same limitation.

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 simple one-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, units, intent, and the all-edges/latest-body scope. Missing only prerequisite and failure-mode notes to be fully self-sufficient.

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?

A single parameter with 100% schema coverage that already documents the radius and its mm unit, so the baseline is high. The description reinforces the millimeter unit and adds the 'constant-radius' qualifier, but adds little beyond the schema.

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 ('Applies a constant-radius fillet to all edges of the most recently created solid body') with scope made explicit. No sibling tool does filleting, so the agent can route here unambiguously.

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?

Names concrete use cases ('remove sharp edges for DFM or aesthetic purposes'), giving clear context for when to reach for it. It stops short of stating prerequisites (a solid body must already exist) or any when-not conditions, but no sibling competes for the same job.

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