poly_chamfer_vertices

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and not read-only; the description adds useful geometric behavior beyond that: it cuts small faces along adjacent edges and ties the extent to 'amount'. This gives an agent a concrete model of the mesh modification without contradicting the 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?

Two short, parallel sentences in Chinese and English capture the operation and the amount semantics with no filler. The key behavior is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

The description, annotations, and 100% schema coverage together convey the operation, destructive nature, amount effect, and the current-selection fallback for objects. The main minor omission is return-value or error-state behavior, which is not critical for a simple mesh-mutation tool.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description mostly restates the amount's effect and the vertex scope, adding only a modest conceptual clarification rather than significant new parameter meaning.

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 operation ('Chamfer the given vertices') and the concrete effect ('cutting small faces along adjacent edges'), with amount controlling the cut width. The vertex-based resource clearly differentiates it from sibling tools such as poly_chamfer_edges.

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 intended use is implied by the verb and the required 'vertices' parameter, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention the nearby alternative poly_chamfer_edges or any prerequisites like requiring an editable poly object.

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