add_mesh_chamfer

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the operation (detects sharp edges, bevels them, returns a dict) and parameter effects, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., file overwriting, in-place modification, requirements for file existence or format). This is adequate but incomplete.

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 well-structured with a clear introductory sentence, followed by a brief explanation of benefits, and then a docstring-style parameter list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor redundancy in the second sentence ('Detects edges...') could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description adequately covers parameter meanings and return value. It lacks error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., file must be STL, must exist), but is otherwise complete for typical usage. The inclusion of return dict fields adds value.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, but the description provides full semantics for all 4 parameters: file_path (path to STL), distance_mm (chamfer distance, default 0.5), angle_threshold_deg (edge angle threshold, default 60), and output_path (defaults to `<name>_chamfered.stl`). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 adds chamfers at sharp edges, explains what a chamfer is (flat bevel), and distinguishes it from fillets by noting improved print speed and reduced stress concentration. This differentiates it from the sibling tool add_mesh_fillet.

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 by mentioning chamfers are faster to print than fillets, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. The sibling add_mesh_fillet is not referenced, leaving the agent to infer context.

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