partdesign_chamfer

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden: it discloses validation and rollback on failure, the exact return structure (including checks, partial mode, and warnings), and the specific exception raised on failure (BlendCheckFailed naming offending edges). This is rich, actionable context beyond what any structured field provides.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then validation, then return details. It is dense but every sentence adds value given the lack of annotations and schema descriptions; slight trimming could improve readability without losing information.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is very complete: it details return values, error handling, and key parameter semantics. Some gaps remain (feature parameter description, exact effect of per_edge/allow_partial), but overall it gives an agent enough to invoke correctly.

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 compensate. It clearly explains `edges` (e_* tags or 'EdgeN' strings) and `size` (chamfer leg in mm > 0), and mentions `per_edge`/`allow_partial` as opt-ins, but it does not explain what those flags do, nor does it describe `feature` or `name`. Compensation is partial for the 6 parameters.

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?

States a specific verb (Chamfer) and target (edges of a feature in a Body), and distinguishes itself from partdesign_fillet by referencing that sibling. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the other chamfer tool, chamfer_edges, which appears in the sibling list.

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 the usage context (PartDesign feature within a Body, same workflow as partdesign_fillet), but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives guidance (e.g., when to pick this over chamfer_edges).

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