booltool_auto_intersect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the destructive side effect (target object is removed), the dependency on the Bool Tool extension, the native fallback, and that a warning will surface in the response. It stops short of edge-case behavior (non-manifold input, undo/irreversibility), so 4 rather than 5.

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, then the destructive side effect, then sibling routing, then args. Efficient and well-ordered. Minor redundancy in restating the warning field in both the body and the Returns block prevents a 5.

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?

A two-parameter destructive geometry operation with no annotations is fully specified here: what it does, the side effect, the extension/fallback path, both parameters, and the response shape. An output schema exists, so the brief Returns note is supplementary rather than load-bearing.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: object_name is identified as the main object and target_name as the intersecting object that will be removed. That last clause is the single most important thing an agent needs to know and is absent from the schema.

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 (keep only the overlapping volume of two objects) and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling boolean_operation by name. An agent can select it without opening either 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?

Explicitly declares itself 'the default choice for an intersection' and names the exact condition that selects the alternative ('use boolean_operation instead only when the cutter must stay editable as a modifier'). This is textbook when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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