geom_boolean_op

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the target_actor is mutated, that hide_tool changes visibility after success, and that fill_holes and simplify_output alter the resulting mesh. It does not mention failure modes, prerequisites, or undo/reversibility, but the core side effects are transparent.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded summary, an Args list, Returns note, KB reference, and example. Each line contributes meaning and there is no filler. It is longer than a minimal two-sentence description, but the length is justified by the number of parameters and the added example/KB guidance.

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 7-parameter mutating tool with no annotations, the description is quite complete: it documents all arguments, states the return shape, gives a concrete example, and links to KB documentation. It could be slightly more complete by covering what happens on invalid actors or how the tool handles failure/undo, but these are partially covered by the KB link and are not severe gaps.

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%, so the description is the only semantic source for the 7 parameters. It explains every one: the roles of target_actor and tool_actor, the five operation values, the output_space choices, and the effects of fill_holes, simplify_output, and hide_tool. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 first sentence is specific: 'Apply a Geometry Script boolean operation between two DynamicMesh actors.' It names the exact operation, resource type, and the two roles, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling geometry tools like geom_extrude or geom_remesh. The parameter list also clarifies union/intersection/subtract modes, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

The description clearly states what the tool does and gives a runnable example, but it never explicitly says when to choose this over sibling geometry tools or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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