rhino_boolean_difference

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false. The description adds no behavioral details beyond that (e.g., what gets destroyed, if original objects are modified, or any side effects). The 'bridge required' note is a prerequisite, not a behavior.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence provides essential information about the operation and a key requirement.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the core operation but lacks details on the result (e.g., whether a new object is created or existing objects modified). As a boolean operation with destructive hint, more context about the outcome would be helpful.

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?

The description clarifies the relationship between a_ids and b_ids ('Subtract b_ids from a_ids'), adding meaning beyond the schema's minimal descriptions. However, it does not address other parameters (name, layer, doc_id), so compensation for 0% schema coverage is partial.

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 clearly states the operation ('Subtract') and the resources ('b_ids from a_ids'), specifying the exact boolean operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like boolean_union and boolean_intersection by the subtractive nature.

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 only mentions that a bridge is required, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., intersection, union). No context on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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