boolean_operation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavioral impact, but it only says 'perform boolean operations' without stating whether the original nodes are modified, replaced, or combined into a new shape. It also fails to disclose what happens to the base shape versus the subsequent shapes, which is essential for a destructive geometry operation.

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 a single short sentence with no filler, so it is concise. However, it is under-specified for an operation that mutates shapes and has non-obvious semantics around the base node and operation enum, making it smaller than 'appropriately sized' even though it is not verbose.

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?

This is a mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description needs to carry more context. It omits key operational details: how many nodes are required, which node is the base, what the result is, and how the operation values differ in effect. The schema compensates partially, but the overall tool definition is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 fully documents nodeIds and operation, including the enum values and the note that the first node is the base shape. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 description names a specific operation type (boolean operations) and a clear resource (shapes), which distinguishes it from the large sibling list where no other tool mentions boolean operations. It could be stronger by clarifying that it applies set-style combinations like union/subtract to multiple nodes, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like group_nodes, flatten_node, or create_vector. The description only restates the obvious purpose, and it does not mention prerequisites such as requiring at least two selected nodes or the significance of node ordering.

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