bool_union

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not indicate whether the operation modifies the original solids, is destructive, or how it handles overlapping regions. This is a significant gap for a 3D boolean 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?

The description is a single sentence, which is extremely concise and front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary words and gets to the point. However, it may be too minimal, sacrificing valuable details for brevity.

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 3D boolean operation with no annotations and no parameter explanations, this description is wholly inadequate. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., solids must be intersecting), what the handles refer to, or the nature of the result. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of operational context.

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 compensate. It does not mention the 'handles' parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess that 'handles' refers to entity handles of the solids to be unioned. This is inadequate.

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 clearly identifies the action (union) and the resource (3D solids). It is specific enough to understand the tool's purpose, but it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like bool_subtract or bool_intersect, which also operate on 3D solids.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without indicating prerequisites, selection requirements, or cases where bool_subtract or bool_intersect would be more appropriate.

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