rhino_mesh_boolean_union

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows it modifies data. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as mesh integrity expectations or document modifications. Given the annotations, the description's incremental value is low.

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?

At three words, the description is extremely concise but severely under-specified. It lacks key operational details, making it insufficient for tool selection.

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 destructive boolean operation on meshes with multiple parameters and optional output schema, the description omits essential context such as ownership of the result, object creation behavior, and parameter roles. It is not complete enough for an agent to use effectively.

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%, and the description fails to explain any parameters (e.g., a_ids, b_ids). It does not add meaning beyond the schema's field names and types, which are insufficient for correct usage.

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 'Boolean-union meshes' clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rhino_boolean_union (which likely operates on breps) via the name 'rhino_mesh_boolean_union', but the description itself provides no explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rhino_boolean_union or rhino_mesh_boolean_difference. The description is minimal, with no contextual usage hints.

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