add_mesh_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 the core behavior (edge detection and beveling), the return value ('Dict with sharp edge count, triangles added, and output path'), and a significant side effect: the inline 3D stage opening on success and automatic decimation of oversized meshes. It does not mention file overwrite behavior or error conditions, but the provided context is substantial.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by compact parameter documentation and a return-type note. The 3D stage paragraph adds relevant behavioral context but is somewhat lengthy; still, every sentence earns its place and there is little waste.

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 4-parameter mesh processing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains inputs, output default, return value, and post-success behavior. It could be more complete with notes on file overwriting, input formats, and failure modes, but these are not critical gaps given the detail already present.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It does: every parameter is documented with meaningful semantics (file_path is the STL path, distance_mm is chamfer distance, angle_threshold_deg controls which edges are chamfered, output_path defaults to <name>_chamfered.stl). This adds real meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add chamfers (flat bevels) at sharp edges.' It clearly explains the operation (detecting sharp edges and beveling them with flat transition faces) and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'add_mesh_fillet' by explicitly contrasting chamfers with fillets.

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?

The description implies usage context by stating that 'Chamfers are faster to print than fillets and reduce stress concentration,' which helps an agent choose chamfering over filleting. It does not name add_mesh_fillet explicitly or state when not to use this tool, but the comparison provides clear contextual guidance.

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