curve_set_bevel

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that bevel properties are set and defines parameters, but does not mention side effects, requirements (e.g., object must be a curve), or error conditions. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Description is extremely concise: one-line purpose followed by parameter list. No fluff, front-loaded with the key effect. Every sentence adds value.

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's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers all parameters and the overall effect. However, it would benefit from mentioning return behavior or confirmation, but it is largely complete for a parameter-setting tool.

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%, but the description includes docstring-like explanations for each parameter: bevel_depth (0=wireframe, >0=tube), bevel_resolution (smoothness), bevel_object (custom profile curve). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema alone.

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?

Description clearly states the tool sets bevel properties on curves to create a tube/pipe effect. It distinguishes from siblings like curve_to_mesh (which converts curve to mesh) and curve_create_* (which create curves).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like adding a bevel modifier or using other curve-related tools. Does not mention prerequisites or when not to use it.

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