nx_fillet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions 'bridge-validated edge selectors', which hints at validation behavior, but it does not disclose that this mutates the part, whether it requires an active part, what happens on invalid selectors, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 concise sentence with no filler. 'Constant-radius' and 'bridge-validated edge selectors' add specificity beyond the tool name, though the jargon could be expanded slightly without hurting conciseness.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is under-specified. An agent would not know what 'name' refers to, how to choose a selector, what the operation requires beforehand, or what success or failure looks like.

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 must compensate. It loosely maps 'radius' to constant-radius and 'edge selectors' to the selector parameter, but it does not explain the required 'name' parameter, the meaning of the selector enum values 'all_vertical' and 'all_outer', or the default behavior.

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 operation: apply a constant-radius fillet, with a specific resource and verb. It also adds the distinguishing mechanism of 'bridge-validated edge selectors'. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like nx_chamfer, but fillet vs chamfer is semantically distinct enough.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nx_chamfer or nx_extrude. It implies the tool is for fillets but does not state preconditions, when not to use it, or how edge selector modes should be chosen.

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