Fillet Edges

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is partially covered, and the description adds a genuinely useful non-obvious convention (cm not mm, degrees). However, it says nothing about idempotency, whether the operation is reversible/undoable, or the known failure mode when mixing convex and concave edges, all of which matter for a non-idempotent mutation.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the unit caveat immediately after. Nothing is repeated from the schema and every clause earns its place.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers units but omits body-targeting expectations, the interplay of edge_selection with the min/max filters, and error behavior. The schema picks up some of this slack, so the definition is workable but leaves real 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?

Schema coverage is 73%, and the schema itself documents the bounding-box filters in cm, so much of the parameter meaning is already in structured fields. The description contributes a global unit convention that covers the undocumented required 'radius' parameter, but adds no detail on the enum semantics or how the filters compose.

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?

"Round edges of a body" gives a specific verb plus resource and clearly reads as a modeling operation, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling chamfer tool, which is the most likely confusion point. An agent can identify the action but not confidently rule out the alternative from the description alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (a body must exist), and no routing to chamfer or shell for adjacent tasks. The only usage-adjacent content is the unit convention, which is a formatting note rather than selection guidance.

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