booltool_auto_slice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well by disclosing that the target is removed, that two pieces are created, and that a Bool Tool or native fallback may be used with a warning. It still omits some mutation details such as undo behavior or whether the original object is replaced versus separated.

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 front-loaded with the core operation, then provides the key side effect, alternative comparison, implementation note, and argument/return details. Every section is relevant and there is no obvious 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 destructive boolean operation with an output schema, the definition covers purpose, target removal, fallback behavior, and return warning. It is nearly complete, though preconditions for a successful slice are only implied rather than stated.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters, and it does: object_name is the object being sliced and target_name is the cutter that will be removed. It does not specify constraints such as mesh type or scene/selection requirements, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 states a specific operation (boolean slice), names the two objects involved, and explains the resulting two pieces plus target removal. It also distinguishes the operation from boolean_operation by noting that UNION, DIFFERENCE, and INTERSECT do not cover slicing.

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 clearly establishes when this tool is needed by contrasting it with boolean_operation, which lacks a slice equivalent. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like booltool_auto_difference or booltool_auto_intersect, so the routing guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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