fillet_edges

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only states the operation itself. It does not disclose whether the tool modifies the object in place, creates a new result, requires specific selection state, or how doc_name and result_name affect behavior.

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, efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for conveying the core operation, though it relies on the schema and surrounding context for the missing parameter details.

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 CAD tool with five parameters, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage, this description leaves too much to inference. It covers the central action and one parameter behavior, but omits tool-selection guidance, behavioral effects, and semantics for most parameters.

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 all five parameters. It clarifies edge_indices through the 'selected vs. all edges' distinction, but radius, object_name, doc_name, and result_name receive no semantic grounding in the description.

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 specific action ('Fillet') and resource ('selected edges'), and adds a meaningful scope condition: all edges when edge_indices is omitted. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like chamfer_edges, leaving the distinction to the verb alone.

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 no guidance on when to use fillet_edges versus alternatives such as chamfer_edges or other edge-modification tools. It only implies a usage mode via the edge_indices omission behavior, but no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative routing is given.

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