fillet_edge

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states a mutation action (filleting) but does not mention potential side effects, prerequisites, or revertibility. The note about parameter mapping is helpful for cross-language use but does not address behavioral aspects.

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 extremely concise with two sentences plus a note. Every sentence provides essential information without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns. It also lacks context about prerequisites or the effect of multiple fillets. The parameter details are incomplete, leaving gaps for a 3-parameter tool with no annotations.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It redundantly notes the default radius but adds value for the 'id' parameter by mapping it to the Ruby 'entity_id'. However, it does not explain the semantics of 'radius' or 'segments' beyond their default values.

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 that the tool rounds all edges of a group/component, using 'Fillet (round)' as the verb and specifying the target resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'chamfer_edge' tool by focusing on rounding rather than beveling.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like chamfer_edge. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent without decision-making context.

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