PartDesign Chamfer

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

The description richly discloses failure behavior: validation, rollback, feature removal, Body Tip restoration, and raising BlendCheckFailed. It also enumerates the full return object including volume, checks, mode, and partial handling. This goes far beyond the sparse annotations and gives the agent a reliable model of side effects.

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 organized into three tight sections: purpose with key parameter syntax, validation/rollback note, and return format. It contains detailed return-field information but all of it is relevant and there is no filler.

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 description does well for a tool with no output schema by specifying the return object and failure behavior in detail. However, it omits the meaning of the required `feature` parameter and relies on an external reference to partdesign_fillet for per_edge/allow_partial behavior, leaving notable gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially by explaining `edges` (e_* tags or EdgeN strings) and `size` (chamfer leg in mm > 0). It mentions per_edge and allow_partial but does not define their semantics, and leaves `feature` and `name` undocumented, so not all parameters are sufficiently 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 that this tool applies a chamfer to edges of a feature in a Body and gives the edge selection syntax. It is unambiguous about the core operation, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling chamfer_edges/fillet_edges tools.

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 provides context that this is a PartDesign chamfer operation on feature edges and references the same validation/rollback behavior as partdesign_fillet. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternative edge-modification tools like chamfer_edges or fillet_edges, leaving selection largely implicit.

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