booltool_auto_slice

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: target object is removed, fallback to native boolean with warning. This provides necessary transparency about destructive effects and dependency, though details like reversibility or material handling are absent.

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 efficiently structured with a title line, explanation, args, and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it quick to parse.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema needed due to its presence), the description covers purpose, parameters, behavior, fallback, and return value. It is complete for effective agent use.

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%, but the description compensates by defining both parameters: object_name as the object to slice and target_name as the cutter (noting it will be removed). This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 'split' and the resource 'main object using the target as a cutter', and distinguishes itself from sibling boolean operations (difference, intersect, union) by specifying it creates two pieces from the intersection.

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 explains the tool's behavior (cutter removed, two pieces created) and fallback mechanism, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like booltool_auto_difference or boolean_operation. Usage context is clear but not directly compared to siblings.

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