rhino_boolean_intersection

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

Annotations already declare `destructiveHint: true`, but the description adds no context about what gets destroyed, whether objects are modified or new ones created, or any prerequisites beyond the bridge. The brief text does not disclose behavioral traits such as object creation, selection changes, or error conditions.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is efficient but could be more structured without wasting space.

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 complexity (7 sub-parameters in the input schema), the description only covers two parameters. Despite the existence of an output schema, it omits optional parameters like `name`, `layer`, and `doc_id`. The 'Bridge required' note adds essential context, but overall the description leaves important 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?

The description repeats the parameter names `a_ids` and `b_ids` without adding meaning beyond what the schema's descriptions provide ('First operand brep GUIDs.', 'Second operand brep GUIDs.'). With schema description coverage at 0% (according to context), the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 verb 'Intersect' and the two resource parameters `a_ids` and `b_ids`. It distinguishes this tool from sibling boolean tools like `rhino_boolean_union` and `rhino_boolean_difference` by naming the specific operation.

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 mentions 'Bridge required', which provides a condition for use. However, it does not explain when to choose intersection over union or difference, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives.

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