Bevels selected or all part edges with an angle-distance chamfer to improve printability on downward edges.
Bevel edges with an angle-distance chamfer (prints better than fillets on downward edges).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | No | Document title or path. Defaults to the active document. | |
| name | No | Optional name for the new feature. | |
| angle | No | ||
| edges | No | 'all' for every edge of the part, or model points lying on the edges. | all |
| distance | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this adds rather than removes something, and the description does not contradict that. But beyond the design tip, it discloses nothing behavioral: not that a feature is added to the feature tree, not whether it can be reverted (sw_delete_feature/sw_undo), and not what happens when edges resolve to 'all'.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the useful aside second; nothing is wasted and no padding.
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 5-parameter geometry mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the what and one design rationale but omits prerequisites (active document / part context), the effect on the feature tree, and the return value (e.g. the new feature name useful for later sw_delete_feature or sw_list_features calls).
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 coverage is 60%, so roughly half the parameters carry their own documentation (doc, name, edges). The phrase 'angle-distance chamfer' does add meaning by revealing that angle and distance jointly define the cut, but it gives no default or range context and says nothing about the angle parameter's 0-90 constraint or how edge points are interpreted.
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') plus the defining mode ('angle-distance chamfer'), which tells the agent exactly which operation variant this performs. It implicitly differentiates from sw_fillet by naming fillets as the alternative, though it never explicitly contrasts the two tools' parameterization.
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 'prints better than fillets on downward edges' gives a real decision cue for choosing chamfer over the sibling sw_fillet in one specific geometry case. However, it offers no guidance on the far more common cases (when not to use a chamfer, prerequisites such as an open part document, or what happens with the default edges='all').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.