rhino_fillet_edge

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows it modifies the object. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond the prerequisite, such as reversibility or failure conditions. It does not contradict the annotations, but it adds minimal value over them.

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, front-loading the core operation and then giving the essential prerequisite. No fluff or redundant details. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the essential flow: apply fillet to edges, with prior step to find edge indices. It doesn't explain error handling or exact behavior on multiple edges, but the output schema (not shown) likely covers return values, and the annotations cover the destructive nature. For a modification tool, this is reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (guid, radius, edge_indices), including the note to use get_object for edge indices. The description repeats that note but adds no new meaning for guid or radius. Since schema coverage is high (though the signal says 0%), the description is not required to compensate, and it meets the baseline.

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 verb ('apply a fillet') and resource ('edges of a solid'), clearly defining the operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like chamfer_edge (different operation) and fillet_curves (curves vs. solid edges) without needing to name them explicitly.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite ('Use get_object first to see available edge indices'), which is valuable. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like rhino_chamfer_edge or rhino_fillet_curves, nor any exclusions. The context is implied but not spelled out.

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