Chamfer Edges

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutable (readOnlyHint: false), non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it modifies edges of a body, which aligns with annotations but doesn't provide additional behavioral context like whether it creates a new feature, affects model history, or has side effects. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 extremely concise—just four words—and front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted language, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 CAD modeling tool with four parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering only basic hints, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the operation's effect on the model, parameter roles, or expected outcomes, leaving too much for the agent to infer from the schema and context alone.

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 provides no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'distance', 'body_name', 'body_index', or 'edge_selection' mean, their units, or how they affect the chamfer operation. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the four parameters.

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 'Chamfer edges of a body' clearly states the verb ('chamfer') and resource ('edges of a body'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar siblings like 'fillet' (which also modifies edges) or 'bevel' operations, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose chamfering over other edge treatments.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing body), when chamfering is appropriate versus filletting, or any context-specific considerations. The user must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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