booltool_auto_intersect

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

Without annotations, the description fully explains the operation: the target object is removed, and there is a fallback mechanism (Bool Tool extension vs native boolean modifier) with a warning in the response. This covers key behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 concise, with a front-loaded purpose statement and structured bullet points for arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present and the description detailing the return (confirmation dict with warning), the tool is well described. Minor omissions like prerequisites or error conditions are not critical given the simplicity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides clear docstrings for both parameters: object_name is the main object, target_name is the intersecting object (and will be removed). This adds significant meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 'keep only the overlapping volume of two objects', providing a specific verb (intersect) and resource (two objects). The tool name and description distinguish it from siblings like booltool_auto_difference and booltool_auto_union.

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 implies its use for intersection operations and notes that the target object is removed, which serves as a caution. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes it clear.

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