cad_chamfer

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions equal-distance behavior and deterministic IDs but fails to disclose destructive nature, required permissions, error conditions, or impact on the document.

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?

Two concise sentences with no extraneous text. Front-loaded with core purpose and key usage detail (edge IDs, distance format).

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?

Covers basic purpose and critical parameter semantics, but lacking output description, behavior on failure, prerequisite element state, and details for optional parameters. Adequate for a simple tool but incomplete.

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?

Description explains distance parameter (inches, expression/variable) and source of edgeIds, but does not clarify documentId, workspaceId, elementId, or name. With 0% schema coverage, this is partial but helpful.

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?

Description clearly identifies it as an equal-distance chamfer on edges, and mentions deterministic edge IDs from cad_find_edges. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like cad_fillet, leaving potential ambiguity.

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?

Implies usage via cad_find_edges for edge IDs and notes distance units, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cad_fillet, and no when-not-to-use instructions.

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