poly_chamfer_edges

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true), and the description aligns by saying it 'cuts' an edge strip. It adds the controllable-width aspect, but does not disclose operational details like requiring an editable-poly object, irreversible topology changes, or effects on selection/UVs. No contradiction with annotations.

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 bilingual description is two short sentences, front-loading the core action and purpose with no filler. The English and Chinese duplication is a localization cost rather than redundancy, and every sentence contributes meaning.

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 destructive 3-parameter modeling tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a common use case, while the schema covers parameters. However, it omits the editable-poly prerequisite and what the tool returns or does if no objects are selected, which are relevant for correct invocation.

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%, with each parameter already documented ('Edge indices to chamfer', 'Chamfer amount', object names with selection fallback). The description's phrase 'controllable-width edge strip' lightly reinforces the amount parameter but adds no new syntax or constraints beyond 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Chamfer edges, cutting a controllable-width edge strip,' and adds the use case 'Good for rounded hard edges.' It clearly identifies edges as the target, which distinguishes it from vertex or face tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like poly_chamfer_vertices.

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 relevant use case ('Good for rounded hard edges'), so the intended context is implied. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives such as poly_bevel_faces or poly_chamfer_vertices, leaving the choice of tool to inference.

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