boolean_intersect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that a result is returned ('simplified composite result') but says nothing about whether the two input solids are consumed or retained, what 'simplified' means, whether the operands must overlap, or what happens on non-intersecting input.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the operation front-loaded. Nothing wasted, though it is arguably under-specified rather than maximally concise.

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 destructive-in-effect geometry operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits critical context: operand fate, result identity/type, and failure modes. It should do considerably more given the total absence of structured behavioral data.

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 the description must compensate. It tells the agent the two arguments are 3D solids, which maps to solid_id_a/solid_id_b, but adds no detail on ID format, validity requirements, or whether the operands must be solids of the same body.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'intersect two 3D solids' plus the output nature ('simplified composite result'). This is clearly distinguishable from boolean_union and boolean_subtract by the verb itself, though the description never names those siblings to sharpen the boundary.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (boolean_union, boolean_subtract) despite them being adjacent siblings. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and verb.

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