catia_boolean_operation

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, idempotent=false, but the description adds genuine behavioural context: assemble respects feature nature, add always adds material, remove is target minus tool, intersect keeps common material, and union_trim requires in-face points. It also notes target_body defaults to the active body. No return/error behaviour is described, keeping it at a 4.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then a compact per-mode bullet list where every line earns its place. The GUI aside is brief and aids recognition; nothing 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 6-parameter destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers operation semantics and the tricky union_trim points adequately, and annotations carry the safety profile. Minor gaps remain around failure modes and the result of the operation, but nothing essential for invocation is missing.

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 already 83%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that faces_to_remove_points/faces_to_keep_points apply only to union_trim and require one [x,y,z] point inside each tool-body face, and points the agent to catia_list_faces. This complements the schema rather than repeating it.

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+resource (combine two Bodies with a boolean operation) and enumerates all five operation modes so the agent knows exactly what each does. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like catia_new_body or catia_pad, and even frames the multi-body modelling workflow.

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?

Explains the context in which the tool is used ('model each functional zone in its own Body, then combine them here') and clarifies the subtle difference between assemble vs add for a Pocket-first tool body. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use / use alternative' statement, so it stops short of a 5.

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