fusion_fillet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, indicating mutation. The description adds the unit (mm) and the default for edges, but does not detail if the body is modified in-place, what happens with invalid edge indices, or any side effects. This is acceptable but adds minimal value beyond annotations.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action. No redundant words or phrases, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description covers the key operational aspects but omits return behavior (success/failure) and the nature of the 'body' parameter. It is adequate but not rich.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains the unit for radius and the default/list behavior for edges, compensating well. However, the required 'body' parameter is left undefined (no type or source hint), so not all parameters are fully clarified.

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 'Round edges of a body by `radius` mm' uses a specific verb ('round') and clearly identifies the resource (edges of a body). It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like fusion_chamfer, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., fusion_chamfer). It does not specify prerequisites, limitations, or context for edge index usage, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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