Chamfer Edges

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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, safety is partly covered. The description usefully adds the unit convention (cm, not mm; angles in degrees) and implies the operation is non-idempotent via the schema's convexity failure note, but says nothing about failure modes, needed selections, or reversibility itself.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded before the unit caveat. 'Unless a parameter says otherwise' is slightly vague but does not waste much space.

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 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk ambiguity (units) but omits how body_name and body_index interact, what happens if no edges match the filters, and whether the operation must be undone rather than reversed. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

At 64% schema coverage, the schema documents the bounding-box filters, convexity and edge_selection, but leaves 'distance' and 'body_name'/'body_index' undescribed. The description only supplies unit semantics ('lengths and coordinates in cm, angles in degrees'), which partially compensates and largely repeats the per-parameter cm notes already in the schema.

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 verb and resource ('Chamfer edges of a body'), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from the geometric siblings fillet/shell by name alone. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with fillet, which would be the natural confusion point.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. body selection), and no mention of when to prefer fillet or split face instead. The agent must infer applicability purely from the tool name.

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