bevel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the action ('bevel') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a destructive modification, permission requirements, rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., new geometry). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 ('Bevel edges or vertices') with zero wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. It efficiently states the core action and targets without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of a geometric modification tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what beveling entails, potential side effects, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively in context with sibling tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (e.g., 'items', 'amount', 'edgeIds', 'meshId', 'segments', 'shape', 'vertexIds') with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact or typical values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Bevel edges or vertices' states the action (bevel) and target resources (edges/vertices), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what beveling does (e.g., creating rounded/chamfered edges) or distinguish from similar operations like 'extrudeFaces' or 'bridge' among siblings. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the geometric transformation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'extrudeFaces' or 'bridge', nor any context about prerequisites (e.g., needing selected edges/vertices). The description implies usage for beveling but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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