boolean_operation

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the object is modified and the target is used as an operand; it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether a boolean modifier is added, what happens if geometry is non-manifold, or what the result/return state looks like. This is thin for a mutating operation.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and uses a clear Args block with one line per parameter. No filler or redundant restatement of the name is present.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool without annotations or an output schema, the description supplies the essential semantics needed to make a first call: what the tool does and what each argument means. However, it lacks guidance on prerequisites, failure cases, object types, or what the operation changes structurally, leaving notable gaps for reliable invocation.

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%, but the description compensates by giving each parameter a meaningful one-line role: object_name is the modified object, target_name is the operand, and operation lists the allowed values. This adds real value over the bare schema titles, though it could be richer about object type requirements and the default operation.

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 verb ('Perform'), a target resource ('boolean operation between two objects'), and lists the three allowed operation kinds. It is distinct from obvious siblings like join_objects or separate_by_material, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish itself from.

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 listed operation values (UNION, INTERSECT, DIFFERENCE) imply when the tool is appropriate, and 'Object to modify' + 'operand' clarify roles. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives such as join_objects or mesh edit tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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