combine

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of conveying behavioral traits. It only states the operation and keep_tools effect, but does not disclose whether it modifies bodies in place, returns new bodies, or has any destructive side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the impact of calling this tool.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences, which is efficient. However, it may be too terse for such a complex operation, as it omits essential context about the inputs and behavior, yet as a stylistic choice it is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (boolean operation on tool bodies) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain how target_body and tool_bodies relate, what the result is, or any prerequisites or side effects. This is a significant gap for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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?

The description explains the operation parameter with its allowed values (join|cut|intersect) and keep_tools as 'preserve tool bodies after op', which adds semantics beyond the schema. However, it does not describe target_body or tool_bodies at all, and with 0% schema description coverage, these key parameters remain ambiguous. The description covers only a subset of the parameters.

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 'Boolean combine' which clearly indicates applying boolean operations (join, cut, intersect) to tool bodies. It distinguishes from siblings like 'drive_joint' or 'extrude' by focusing on boolean combinations. However, it is somewhat terse and doesn't explicitly mention target_body and tool_bodies as inputs, so there is slight ambiguity but still the purpose is clear.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'revolve', 'fillet_edges', or other body operations. There is no mention of scenarios where boolean combine is appropriate or contraindicated, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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