chamfer_edges

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the important fallback to all edges when edge_indices is omitted, but it does not state whether the operation modifies the original object, creates a new result, or how result_name affects behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutating CAD operation.

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 well-structured sentence, front-loads the main action, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the core behavior.

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 mutating tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, this description is too thin. It omits key context about result creation, default document behavior, and relationship to the similar fillet_edges tool, leaving agents to guess important invocation details.

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 for the five parameters. It only clarifies edge_indices behavior through the omission fallback; object_name, distance, result_name, and doc_name are left entirely to their property names. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 (chamfer) and the resource (selected edges), and adds the scope distinction that omitting edge_indices applies to all edges. It is unambiguous even though it does not explicitly contrast with fillet_edges.

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 conditional usage context ('all edges when edge_indices is omitted') but provides no guidance on when to choose chamfer_edges over alternatives like fillet_edges. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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