nx_chamfer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states that a chamfer is applied, implying mutation, but it does not describe what geometry is affected, whether the operation is reversible, what preconditions must exist, or how failures are handled.

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 a single sentence with no filler, and the key action and object are front-loaded. However, the phrase 'bridge-validated' is jargon and the brevity comes at the cost of valuable parameter and usage detail.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, this definition is incomplete. It omits the meaning of the required 'name' parameter, the selector semantics, required preconditions, and any guidance on verifying the result—despite the existence of nx_verify_result as a sibling.

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%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining the parameters. It vaguely ties 'distance' to the equal-distance concept and mentions 'edge selectors,' but it does not explain the required 'name' parameter, the units or interpretation of 'distance,' or the meaning of the 'all_vertical' and 'all_outer' enum values.

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 states a concrete verb ('Apply') and resource ('chamfer') and qualifies the operation as 'equal-distance', which distinguishes it from related operations like fillets. The phrase 'bridge-validated edge selectors' hints at the selection mechanism, though the jargon is unexplained.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nx_fillet or nx_extrude. The mention of edge selectors and the enum values provides implied context, but an agent is left to infer when this tool is appropriate and how selector choices affect the result.

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