nx_chamfer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is symmetric and defaults to all edges, which is useful, but it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether it requires an open part, how it interacts with existing features, or what the output/return value is. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, and the default behavior is stated efficiently. Every word 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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the offset parameter's units/semantics, how edge_indices are used, what the tool returns (despite an output schema existing), or any prerequisites. An agent would likely need to inspect the schema or guess at the chamfer dimensions. The description is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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. It mentions 'edges of a body' and 'default all edges', which maps to body_id and edge_indices, and 'symmetric chamfer' maps to offset. However, it does not explain the meaning of offset (e.g., distance, angle) or the format of edge_indices, leaving some ambiguity. The description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Create') and resource ('a symmetric chamfer on edges of a body'), and adds the default behavior ('default all edges'). It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like nx_edge_blend (which is likely a fillet/blend operation) and nx_extrude, 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 implies usage: it is for creating a chamfer on edges, with all edges as the default. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus nx_edge_blend or other edge operations, nor does it mention prerequisites like having a body selected or a part open. The context is clear but exclusions/alternatives are not addressed.

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