chamfer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a critical prerequisite (base_feature must be solid) but does not detail side effects, error conditions, or return behavior. The output schema may cover return values, but other behavioral traits are partially revealed.

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 efficient, front-loaded with purpose, and structured with a clear Args list. The cross-reference to fillet's docstring is a useful pointer without bloating the text.

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 zero schema descriptions and a 6-parameter tool, the description provides complete parameter explanations and a key constraint. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description adequately covers all necessary context.

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%, but the Args section thoroughly explains each parameter, including examples for 'edges' ('Edge3', 'Edge7') and units for 'size' ('in mm'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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 clearly states 'Bevel edges of a solid feature (PartDesign::Chamfer)', using a specific verb ('Bevel') and resource ('solid feature'). It also references the PartDesign::Chamfer feature, distinguishing it from siblings like fillet.

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 explicitly warns 'base_feature MUST be a solid feature, never a sketch' and points to fillet's docstring for further reasoning. This provides clear when-not-to-use guidance, though it does not fully enumerate alternatives beyond the fillet cross-reference.

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