filletRound edges of a Fusion 360 body by setting a radius and choosing which edges to modify. Select all, top, bottom, or vertical edges to apply the fillet.
Round edges of a body
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| radius | Yes | ||
| body_name | No | Body name (preferred) | |
| body_index | No | ||
| edge_selection | No | all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It implies a geometric modification ('round edges') without specifying permanence, side effects, or what happens to the original body. No contradiction with annotations exists, but the description doesn't enrich understanding beyond the basic action.
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 extremely concise with just four words, front-loading the core action. There's no wasted language, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. Every word earns its place in conveying the basic purpose.
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 4-parameter tool with low schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only cover basic hints, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'round edges' means in practice, what the radius parameter does, how edge selection works, or what the tool returns. The context demands more detail for effective use.
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?
With only 25% schema description coverage (only 'body_name' has a description), the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented parameters. It mentions 'edges' generally but doesn't explain the 'edge_selection' enum options or clarify the relationship between 'body_name' and 'body_index'. The description adds little semantic value beyond what's implied by the tool name.
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 ('round edges') and target ('of a body'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'chamfer' (which also modifies edges) or 'shell' (which might involve rounding), so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'chamfer' or other edge-modification tools. The description only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed for successful operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.