booltool_auto_union

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that the target object is consumed (destructive), the fallback behavior to native boolean modifier if Bool Tool is missing, and that a warning may be included in the response.

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 well-structured with separate sections for usage, args, and returns, and each sentence is informative. It is concise but could be slightly tighter without losing clarity.

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 string params, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, behavior, parameters, return value, and fallback mechanism, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 explains both parameters: object_name is the main object to keep, target_name is the object to merge in, adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema titles. With 0% schema coverage, the description provides all parameter semantics.

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 it performs an auto boolean union to merge two mesh objects into one, specifying the target is consumed. This distinguishes it from sibling booltool variants (difference, intersect, slice) and other mesh operations.

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?

It explains the tool is useful for permanently joining meshes so parts don't float away, providing a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'boolean_operation' or 'join_objects'.

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