chamfer

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden yet says nothing about whether the operation modifies the model irreversibly, whether it fails on invalid edge indices, or whether it requires an active document. It does disclose units (mm), which is useful, but leaves the mutation behavior opaque.

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 single-sentence purpose followed by a brief Args block; nothing is wasted. There is minor redundancy in repeating 'Distance in mm' in the args line.

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, for an unannotated mutation tool, missing prerequisites (active part document, valid edge discovery) and failure behavior leave the definition only minimally 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?

Schema coverage is only 33%, and the description compensates for the two undocumented params by defining `distance` as mm and giving the comma-separated format with an example for `edge_indices`. The third param, `instance`, is only covered by the schema, so semantics are adequate but not complete.

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 names a specific verb and resource — 'Add chamfer (angled edge) to edges of the solid body' — and the parenthetical definition disambiguates it from a generic edge operation. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling `fillet` (rounded vs angled), so an agent must infer that distinction.

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 never states when to use this versus `fillet` or other edge-modification tools, nor that edge indices must first be obtained via `list_edges`/`find_edge`. It also omits the prerequisite that an active solid part must exist, leaving only implicit 'use this to chamfer' guidance.

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