poly_bevel_faces

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds behavioral context beyond that by describing the two-step algorithm (extrude then inset), which tells the agent what will happen to the geometry. It does not mention prerequisites like needing an Editable Poly object, but the core mutation behavior is disclosed.

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 short and front-loaded, with the operation stated before the use case. The bilingual duplication is acceptable but slightly redundant, preventing a perfect score for conciseness.

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 simple polygon editing tool with a fully documented schema and destructive annotations, the description covers the operation, the purpose, and the parameter behavior. It is missing only explicit prerequisites or selection requirements, which are common to the poly_* tool family.

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 input schema already documents height as extrusion height and outline as inset amount. The description reinforces the role of each parameter within the operation order but adds little new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Bevel faces') and details the exact operation: first extrude along the normal by height, then inset by outline. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like poly_extrude_faces and poly_inset_faces, which perform only one of these steps.

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 gives a concrete use case ('useful for grooves and borders'), which implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as poly_extrude_faces or poly_inset_faces. No exclusion or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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