boolean_operation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that operating on a shared-definition instance consumes only that instance, that the result is a new group leaving siblings untouched, and the non-manifold reliability caveat. It stops short of covering permissions or how delete_originals interacts with shared-definition instances.

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-loads the core purpose and then layers in semantics, edge-case behavior, and return interpretation in short sentences. The line breaks are slightly awkward but each sentence carries distinct, useful information with no 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 mutation tool with no annotations, it addresses result semantics, edge-case reliability, and a subtle scoping behavior, and even interprets the bbox_mm null return despite an output schema existing. The main remaining gap is explicit routing against sibling modeling tools.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates the schema's 'difference (target minus tool)' note. It adds the shared-instance/consumption nuance that bears on how target_id/tool_id behave, but no other syntax or format detail beyond 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 (perform) and resource (boolean operation on two solids) and enumerates the three operation modes. An agent can immediately distinguish it from the modeling siblings (fillet_edge, chamfer_edge, create_*), which do not overlap this function.

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 clarifies what each operation means and warns that the tool is unreliable on non-manifold geometry, which is useful selection context. However, it never states when to choose boolean_operation over alternatives or any prerequisites (e.g. solids must overlap), so usage is only implied.

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