nx_edge_blend

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the default of all edges, which is a useful behavioral hint, but it does not state whether the operation is destructive, whether the body is modified in place, if it is reversible, or any side effects on the model. For a mutating operation like a fillet, 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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose and the default behavior. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word serves a purpose. It is appropriately short for such a simple operation, though it could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.

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 is a CAD operation that likely modifies a body, the description lacks essential context such as whether the body must be selected or open, the effect on the feature tree, or any return value. Although an output schema exists, the description does not explain what happens to the body or how to verify the result. The lack of annotations makes this gap more pronounced, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool confidently.

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 schema has zero description coverage (0%), so the description must compensate. It does clarify that edge_indices defaults to null meaning all edges, which adds meaning beyond the schema's default null. However, it does not explain the radius or body_id parameters, leaving them to be inferred from their names. Partial compensation is achieved, but not fully.

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 the action ('Create an edge blend') and the target ('on edges of a body'), which is a specific verb-resource pair. It also notes the default behavior ('default all edges'), which adds precision. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling nx_chamfer, which also operates on edges, so it misses a chance to disambiguate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nx_chamfer, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., an open part with a body). The description implies it is for creating fillets but does not state any exclusions or contexts where it should not be used. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and schema.

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