booltool_auto_difference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the destructive side effect ('target object is used as a cutter and removed after the operation'), the dependency on the Bool Tool extension, and the fallback plus warning surfaced in the response. It stops short of stating undoability or that both objects must be mesh type/in the scene, which are the remaining failure modes.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and default-choice rule, then a compact Args/Returns block. Every sentence carries instruction or consequence; no filler.

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 two-parameter destructive mesh tool, the description covers what happens, what is lost, which alternative to use, and what the response may contain. Even though an output schema exists, the warning-field note adds useful conditional context.

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 coverage is 0% (bare string titles), so the description must compensate, and it does: object_name is 'the object to cut from' and target_name is 'the cutter object (will be removed)', adding role and side-effect semantics the schema lacks. It does not specify name format/case sensitivity or whether the object must be selected.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Auto boolean difference: subtract the target object from the main object') and immediately distinguishes itself from its Bool Tool siblings (union/intersect/slice) and from boolean_operation. An agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit default rule ('This is the default choice for a cut') plus the exact condition that selects the alternative ('Use boolean_operation instead only when the cutter must stay editable as a modifier'). This is a textbook when/when-not/alternative statement.

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