catia_chamfer

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

Annotations report readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds little behavioral context beyond the verb 'bevel.' It does not disclose that the operation modifies the solid body, may fail on invalid edges, or whether it inserts a feature. No side effects or failure modes are mentioned.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action 'Bevel one or more edges' before the mode explanation. Every clause earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 an 8-parameter tool, the description is lean, but the schema covers all parameter semantics. The main gap is that the description does not state that a chamfer feature is created in the part tree or that the operation requires an active part context, though these are common to sibling CAD tools. Overall, an agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents all 8 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual meaning: length_angle is 'a length and an angle, the usual case' and two_lengths is 'a setback on each face,' which helps an agent choose the right mode and parameters. This additional context justifies a 4.

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 one or more edges.' It is distinct from siblings like catia_fillet, which rounds rather than bevels, though it does not explicitly name the alternative. The mention of modes ('length_angle' vs 'two_lengths') adds useful specificity.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use chamfer rather than a fillet or other edge operation. It only instructs the agent to choose between two modes, calling length_angle 'the usual case,' which is more about parameter selection than tool selection. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or named alternatives.

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