fillet_edge

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies geometry modification but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, requires selection, or what happens if the entity is invalid. The Ruby mapping note is technical, not behavioral.

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 two core sentences and a technical note. It is front-loaded with purpose and default. The note could be integrated more naturally but does not waste space.

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?

Given 3 params, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers basic purpose and one param default. It lacks usage context, failure modes, and return value explanation (though output schema exists). Adequate but with gaps.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the default radius, implies 'id' identifies the component/group, and provides Ruby parameter mapping. However, 'segments' (rounding quality) is not explained.

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 (fillet/round) and target (all edges of a group/component), with a default radius. It distinguishes from the sibling 'chamfer_edge' by naming the specific operation, but does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings.

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, such as chamfer_edge or boolean_operation. No prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions are mentioned.

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