chamfer_edge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the modification behavior (chamfering edges), notes unreliability on non-manifold geometry, and details the return value, including stats to check for failures. However, it does not explicitly mention destructiveness or undo behavior.

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 the main action stated first. The return value description is slightly verbose but structured with a clear format. Overall, it is efficient and avoids unnecessary words.

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?

Considering the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema), the description covers key behaviors, default, reliability note, and return value. It does not compare with the sibling tool fillet_edge, but the context is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it reiterates that 'distance' is in mm and that 'id' is an entity ID from a previous response. No additional parameter details or constraints are provided.

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 action (chamfer/bevel), the resource (edges of a group/component), and the key parameter (distance in mm). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like fillet_edge (rounding) and boolean_operation by specifying the bevel operation.

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 explains default behavior ('By default ALL edges are chamfered') and warns about unreliability on non-manifold geometry, providing context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like fillet_edge.

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