fusion_chamfer

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

The description adds no behavioral traits beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations indicate it is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false), but chamfering is inherently destructive—the description does not clarify this contradiction or explain side effects, permission needs, or failure modes.

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 front-loads the purpose. It is concise with no filler. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the edges and distance clarifications.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality but lacks return value information (e.g., success status or modified body handle), prerequisites (body must exist), and edge indices context. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 has 0% description coverage; the description adds meaning for two parameters: edges can be 'all' or a list of indices, and distance is in mm. The body parameter remains unexplained (integer or string ID), so there is some gap, but overall the description significantly enhances understanding of parameter values.

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 (chamfer), the resource (edges of a body), and the key parameter (distance). It distinguishes the tool from most siblings by naming a specific geometric operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate from fusion_fillet which performs a similar edge modification.

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 fillet or other edge operations. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where this tool is inappropriate.

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