create_fillet

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but not side effects such as adding a feature to the feature tree, modifying the solid geometry, or whether the operation is reversible. 'Create' implies mutation but does not disclose what happens beyond that.

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 with no filler; the parenthetical definition increases clarity without extra verbosity. The core action, resource, and scope are front-loaded.

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 schema fully documents all seven parameters, and the description states the operation and scope clearly. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not explain the resulting model change or feature lifecycle, which is a notable gap for a create-type operation.

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 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a general 'one or more edges' idea, which the edgeIds parameter already conveys; no parameter-specific meaning is added beyond the 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 specifies a clear action ('Create') and resource ('fillet'), with the parenthetical 'rounded edge' clarifying the geometry and 'one or more edges' defining scope. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling create_chamfer, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use create_fillet versus alternatives such as create_chamfer. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or context clues beyond the operation name itself, leaving the agent to infer suitability.

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