rhino_chamfer_edge

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows the operation is destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—it does not mention whether the original object is modified in place, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects on the solid. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, the description still fails to add value about the actual behavioral consequences.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the core action and then gives a practical usage tip. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (three parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides essential usage guidance via the get_object prerequisite. However, it lacks information about units for distance, edge_index bounds, or error handling. It is adequate for basic invocation but leaves gaps that the schema or annotations do not fill, particularly around output format and edge cases.

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%—the description contains no parameter details at all. While the input schema provides descriptions for each parameter (guid, distance, edge_indices), the description does not augment or clarify them. For a low-coverage situation, the description should compensate by explaining parameter relationships or format requirements, but it does not.

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 the specific verb 'Apply' and the resource 'chamfer (beveled edge)' on 'edges of a solid', which clearly distinguishes this from sibling fillet operations. It also directs the agent to use get_object first, reinforcing the precise scope. This is a clear, specific purpose with no ambiguity.

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 instructs to 'Use get_object first to see available edge indices', which is a useful prerequisite for correct invocation. However, it does not compare this tool to alternatives like rhino_fillet_edge or rhino_fillet_curves, nor does it state when not to use this tool. There is clear context for the workflow but no explicit alternative routing.

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