boolean_union

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', but does not state whether the input solids are consumed, whether the operation is reversible, what happens on failure, or any permission requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The core operation is stated immediately and no sentence is wasted.

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 boolean operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits usage context, parameter details, and behavioral specifics such as whether the original solids remain and how errors are handled.

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% and the description does not explain the two parameters beyond restating that they represent two solids. It does not clarify ID format, source, or the distinct roles of solid_id_a and solid_id_b, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('union'), resource ('two 3D solids'), and outcome ('simplified composite result'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling boolean_subtract and boolean_intersect by operation name, though it does not explicitly route between them.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus boolean_subtract, boolean_intersect, or other modeling operations. There are also no prerequisites or conditions given (e.g., solids must exist, must be valid 3D solids).

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