rhino_chamfer_surface

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the operation creates a chamfer surface between two selected surfaces, but it does not state whether the original surfaces are trimmed, modified, or preserved, nor does it describe selection state or side effects. The 'Dict with command result' line adds no real behavioral detail beyond the output schema.

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 brief and front-loaded, which is good, but it includes a 'controller' parameter not present in the schema and a returns line that duplicates information the output schema already provides. Not every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a creating/mutating tool with no annotations, and the description leaves out critical operational details: how distance units are interpreted, how the two surfaces are supplied, and whether the original surfaces are altered. The one-parameter schema and output schema are simple, but a somewhat richer description is still needed for correct invocation.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but 'distance: Chamfer distance' only minimally restates the parameter name and adds no units, valid range, or default behavior. It also documents a 'controller' argument that does not appear in the input schema, which can mislead an agent about the actual invocation contract.

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?

States a specific action (create), a specific resource (chamfer surface), and the input context (two selected surfaces). This is semantically distinct from siblings like rhino_fillet_surface and rhino_chamfer_edges, even though it never names them.

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 phrase 'between two selected surfaces' implies the precondition that two surfaces must be selected, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. It does not tell the agent to prefer this over fillet or edge-chamfer tools, so the guidance is mostly inferred.

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