add_bevel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add a Bevel modifier,' with no information about side effects, dependencies on the active object, modifier stack placement, destructiveness, or undo behavior. This leaves the agent without critical behavioral context for a mutating tool.

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 one short sentence and immediately identifies the operation. The phrase 'cheapest way to make hard edges catch light' is slightly colloquial but adds a concise purpose statement. There is no unnecessary repetition of the tool name or schema fields, keeping the definition efficient.

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?

With eight parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain prerequisites and behavior more thoroughly. It does not state whether the modifier is added to an active object, whether a selected object is required, or how the modifier is identified afterward. The definition is too sparse for an agent to use confidently in varied scene contexts.

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 only 38%, and the tool description adds no parameter explanations. Parameters like profile, segments, limit_method, and modifier_name have no prose context beyond bare names and constraints. Defaults and enums provide some signal, but the low coverage combined with complete silence in the description leaves major semantic gaps.

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 action and resource: 'Add a Bevel modifier.' It also hints at the purpose ('make hard edges catch light'), making the tool's role clear. It is distinct enough from sibling add_* tools because it names the exact modifier, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the more generic add_modifier.

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 phrase 'the cheapest way to make hard edges catch light' implies when an agent might choose this tool, but it does not give explicit context, exclusions, or alternatives. There is no mention of selecting an object first, nor of when to prefer add_bevel over add_modifier or a manual bevel operation. Usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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