bevel_edges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it bevels all edges but does not mention whether it is destructive, modifies the mesh in place, or requires a specific selection mode. The impact on mesh geometry is implied but not detailed.

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 consists of two clear, concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the main action ('Bevel all edges of a mesh') and then describes the parameters efficiently.

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 complexity of mesh operations and lack of output schema/annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, preconditions (e.g., object must be a mesh), or postconditions. More context is needed for safe use.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that 'width controls bevel size' and 'segments controls smoothness', which adds value. However, the required 'name' parameter is not explained.

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 bevels all edges of a mesh, with specific parameters (width, segments) for control. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_modifier' or 'bridge_edge_loops'.

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 for beveling mesh edges but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other bevel methods (e.g., modifier) or prerequisites. No exclusion or alternative tools are mentioned.

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