Boolean operation

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

Annotations already declare the mutation-safe profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavior: the result takes the lowest shape's place, the resulting id is returned, and the parent-sharing constraint. It does not explain what happens to the source shapes' child structure, leaving a minor gap.

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 the four modes, then placement/return behavior, then use cases and editor scope. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler sentences.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers modes, placement, returned id, parent requirement, and editor support. The one omission is what happens to the original nodes' internal hierarchy after the boolean, a detail an agent might need.

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 60%, and the description enriches the operation enum with per-value meaning (union, subtract, intersect, exclude) that the schema lists only as bare names. It also implicitly reinforces the multi-node input, though it adds nothing for the undocumented `name` parameter.

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 (combine shapes into one boolean shape) and enumerates all four operation modes with plain-language definitions of each. An agent can distinguish this from nearby siblings like figma_flatten_nodes, figma_group_nodes, and figma_ungroup_nodes without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context ("Builds icons, badges, cut-out shapes and logos") and a hard prerequisite (shapes must share a parent), plus editor support notes. It stops short of explicitly contrasting when to pick this over the sibling flatten/group/ungroup tools, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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