chamfer_edge

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the operation and default distance, but does not mention if the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires specific permissions. The parameter mapping to Ruby is provided, but behavioral side effects are omitted.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the main purpose. It avoids fluff, though the third sentence on parameter mapping could be considered peripheral in a short description.

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 covers the main operation and default distance, but lacks details on edge cases, return values, and destructive nature. Since output schema exists, return values are expected there, but the description could be more complete regarding side effects and expected behavior.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains that 'distance' is in mm and default 5mm, and clarifies that 'id' maps to Ruby entity_id. However, it does not explicitly state that id is the group/component identifier, leaving inference required.

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 clearly states the tool chamfers all edges of a group/component at a specified distance. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like fillet_edge due to the different operation name.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fillet_edge. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without decision-support information.

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