add_corner_round

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a non-obvious behavior — the round is carried into the flat pattern — and that the target is sheet metal corner edges. It omits prerequisites (must the document be a sheet metal part?), error behavior, and reversibility, which matters 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-loaded with the purpose and usage in two short lines, then a compact Args block. No wasted sentences, though the Args structure largely restates schema fields.

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 no explanation. However, the description never says how to obtain valid edge indices (the sibling find_edges) nor whether a flat-pattern-bearing sheet metal document is required, which is the main practical blocker for a correct call.

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 only 33%, but the description compensates for the two undocumented parameters: it explains edge_indices as comma-separated short edges through the thickness at corners and gives units (mm) for radius. The 'through the thickness' phrasing adds real meaning beyond the schema and helps disambiguate which edges qualify.

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 definition gives a specific verb-plus-resource ('Round sharp sheet metal corners') and names the underlying feature (Corner Round) plus its flat-pattern behavior. It is clearly distinct from generic modeling siblings, though it never names its closest alternatives (fillet, chamfer) to draw the boundary explicitly.

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?

One positive usage cue is given: 'Use on exposed corners people handle, e.g. mounting plate tabs.' That is genuinely helpful but purely inclusive — there is no when-not guidance and no pointer to fillet/chamfer/find_edges as the route for other geometry, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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