Chamfer edges

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

Annotations only provide a title, with no readOnly or destructive hints, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that selection behavior mirrors onshape_fillet, which is a behavioral note, but it does not mention any other behavioral traits like whether the operation modifies the document, requires specific permissions, or has side effects on existing features. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and then providing a helpful pointer to onshape_fillet. It wastes no words, but it could arguably include a bit more context without losing conciseness. It is well-structured and efficient.

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 14 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the parameters interact (e.g., which chamfer type requires which fields), any prerequisites, or what happens after execution. The only guidance is on selection, which is helpful but insufficient for a tool of this complexity. The schema descriptions cover parameters individually, but the description does not tie them together or provide workflow context.

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 100%, meaning all 14 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but per the rubric, high schema coverage earns a baseline of 3. The description does not compensate beyond that, so 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Bevel the selected edges') with a clear resource (edges). It also references onshape_fillet for selection, which helps distinguish it from that sibling (fillet rounds edges while chamfer bevels them). This is unambiguous and specific.

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 one usage guideline: 'Selection works exactly as for onshape_fillet.' This tells the agent how to select edges, but it does not explain when to use chamfer vs. fillet or other edge-modification tools. The when-to-use guidance is only implied by the tool name and 'bevel' verb, not explicit.

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