create_chamfer

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' signals mutation, but the description does not mention that this adds a feature to the model/Part Studio history, that the edge IDs must come from existing geometry, or any failure/undo implications. This is a meaningful gap for a mutating CAD 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the operation and clarifies the geometry term ('beveled edge') in a parenthetical. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The input schema fully documents all seven parameters, and the description gives the core semantic, but the tool has no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what the tool returns, what preconditions must hold (valid edges in the referenced element), or how this relates to subsequent feature operations, leaving an agent to infer those details.

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 100%, so the schema documents distance units, deterministic edge IDs, optional variable distance, and the default name. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail; the baseline of 3 is therefore appropriate.

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 identifies the operation ('Create') and the resource ('chamfer (beveled edge)') and narrows the target to one or more edges. It does not explicitly contrast with the closely related sibling create_fillet, so it misses the full differentiation expected for a 5.

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 intended use is implied: call this when a chamfer needs to be added to edges. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over alternatives such as create_fillet, nor any when-not-to-use or exclusion guidance.

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