Bevel selected edges of a CAD body by an equal distance to break sharp corners. Provide the body, edge IDs from select_edges, and a positive distance.
Bevel edges by an equal distance (get ids from select_edges).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| distance | Yes | ||
| edge_ids | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds the equal-distance beveling behavior and prerequisite context, but does not disclose further behavioral details such as reversibility or what happens to the original body.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It states the operation first and includes only one brief parenthetical prerequisite.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a required parameter with zero schema coverage, the description leaves the 'body' parameter unexplained and offers only partial usage guidance.
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 clarifies that edge_ids come from select_edges and that distance is an equal bevel distance, but the required 'body' parameter is not explained at all.
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 and resource: 'Bevel edges by an equal distance.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish chamfer from the sibling fillet_edges operation.
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 parenthetical '(get ids from select_edges)' gives a useful prerequisite for obtaining edge IDs, implying the tool should be used after select_edges. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use chamfer_edges versus fillet_edges or other alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.