treat_edges

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses units ('in mm'), the default behavior of second_size ('defaults to equal chamfer legs'), and the source of edge IDs. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a mutating operation, does not mention prerequisites such as an active model or editable selection, and gives no indication of failure modes or reversibility.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action appears first, followed by the most essential parameter semantics and input sourcing. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler or repetition.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and several parameters, this description is incomplete. It lacks guidance on tangent behavior, the name field, document_id, return value, prerequisites, and what happens to the model after the operation. The core concept is clear, but too much is left unspecified for an agent to invoke it with full confidence.

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, but it only explains size, second_size, and edges. It does not clarify the kind parameter beyond the verb 'fillet or chamfer,' and it leaves name, tangent, and document_id unexplained. This partial coverage is insufficient for a nested spec with six properties.

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 a specific action ('Fillet or chamfer') on a specific resource ('selected current edges'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like create_feature or set_entity_state, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 clear usage context by explaining that edge IDs come from list_entities(o3d_edge), which effectively instructs the agent to prepare inputs via that sibling tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but no sibling appears to offer the same fillet/chamfer capability, so the usage guidance is adequate.

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