nx_unite

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It earns credit for disclosing the destructive side effect — tool bodies are consumed and vanish from nx_list_bodies, so their ids become invalid — which is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs. It does not cover failure modes (non-intersecting or non-solid bodies), permission/part-state requirements, or how nx_undo relates to the operation.

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?

Two short sentences, verb-first, with the key scoping fact front-loaded and the consequence immediately after. Nothing is padded or restated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the id-lifecycle consequence is captured. For a mutating geometry operation with zero annotation coverage, however, the absence of any statement about part context, body type constraints, or failure behavior leaves the agent guessing before a destructive call.

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% and both parameters are bare strings/string arrays with no format hints. The prose does implicitly map 'target body' to target_body_id and 'tool bodies' to tool_body_ids, but adds no id syntax, no ordering or cardinality guidance, and does not say whether the target may also appear in the tool list.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb (boolean-unite) and resource (tool bodies into a target body), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from every sibling in the list (extrude, shell, edge_blend, etc.). It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with adjacent modelling operations, but the operation is self-defining.

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 never says when to reach for this versus other body operations, nor does it state prerequisites such as whether bodies must reside in the same part file or whether they need to intersect. The only routing hint is the passing reference to nx_list_bodies as the place the consumed ids disappear from.

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