boolean_subtract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the result is a 'simplified composite result,' but omits critical details: whether input solids are retained or consumed, error conditions, and what 'simplified' actually means. This is a mutation-like operation and the description does not clarify its side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It immediately states the action and result without unnecessary preamble. Structurally, it is as concise as possible for the information it conveys.

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 a boolean subtraction on 3D solids, the description is insufficient. It lacks operand order, destructive semantics, prerequisites, and meaningful return details, and there are no annotations or output schema to compensate. An agent would need external knowledge to call this correctly.

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% for two required parameters. The description says 'subtract two 3D solids' but never maps solid_id_a and solid_id_b to operands or clarifies the subtraction order (A minus B vs. B minus A). It adds almost no meaning beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'subtract two 3D solids.' This clearly identifies the operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like boolean_union or boolean_intersect. The verb itself provides implicit differentiation, so the purpose is clear but not maximally sharp.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as boolean_union or boolean_intersect. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions—only the basic operation. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and description.

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