Shape boolean

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely important, non-obvious trait beyond them: 'Input nodes are consumed into the result', telling the agent the original nodes no longer exist standalone after the call. It still says nothing about failure modes (non-manifold or non-solid inputs) or permission requirements, so it is not a full 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?

Three short, dense sentences with zero filler; the operation list is front-loaded right after the one-line purpose. The telegraphic style ('boolean of nodes') is slightly terse but nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

With no output schema and a five-parameter mutation tool, the description should say what comes back (a new node id/handle?) and how the consumed inputs are referenced afterwards. It covers the operation semantics and input consumption well but leaves the return contract and error conditions implicit.

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 only 20% and five parameters exist, so the description carries real weight here. It does explain op semantics (union/subtract/intersect) and the fate of inputs, but leaves name, color and especially surf_id entirely undefined in both schema and prose. Adequate but incomplete compensation for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('boolean of nodes') and then defines exactly what each operation mode does, so an agent knows this is a CSG combine, not a primitive-creation tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearest related sibling (shape_hull, shape_mirror), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that inputs must be closed solids), and no exclusions or mentions of alternatives such as shape_hull or shape_array. The only routing information is implicit in the op semantics, so the agent must infer everything about applicability.

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