apply_mesh_boolean_actor_to_actor

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, readOnly=false. The description goes further: target is mutated in place, source is left untouched, the operation is NOT idempotent (re-running keeps cutting the already-modified target), and when the engine refuses an empty result the target is unchanged, boolean_applied is false, and the call fails. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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 purpose sentence, then the sibling differentiation, then behavioral caveats, then the return shape. Every sentence earns its place with no filler, and the mutation warning is not buried.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description supplies the full return shape inline (actor_name, source_actor_name, operation, triangle counts, vertex count, boolean_applied), plus the failure case. For a destructive mutation tool with rich annotations, this is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters in detail, including defaults for operation, use_world_transforms, fill_holes, and simplify_output. The description reinforces the role of source_actor_name and actor_name but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Apply a CSG boolean using a second DynamicMeshActor as the cutting tool.' It then explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling apply_mesh_boolean, stating that this variant uses a live dynamic mesh rather than a transient primitive tool, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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?

Explicitly names the alternative (apply_mesh_boolean) and the condition that selects this tool ('the tool geometry is the live dynamic mesh of source_actor_name'), and adds the non-idempotency caveat plus failure semantics. Nothing about when to reach for this tool versus its sibling is left to inference.

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