Merge two solids into one, replacing the first solid with the combined volume of both shapes.
Unite/add two solids together. The result replaces solid1 with the combined volume of both shapes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| solid1 | Yes | First solid (result kept here) in "Component:Solid" format | |
| solid2 | Yes | Second solid (merged into first) in "Component:Solid" format |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the result replaces solid1, which is useful, but lacks details on side effects, permissions required, or whether the operation is destructive (e.g., original solids are modified). The description is minimal.
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 that is direct and concise. It contains no unnecessary words or information.
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 simplicity of the tool (two parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the core function and side effect (replaces solid1), but lacks information on return values, error conditions, or preconditions. For a straightforward operation, this is acceptable but not thorough.
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%, with each parameter described in the schema. The description adds that 'solid1' is replaced, which is already implied by the schema description 'result kept here'. Thus, the description adds marginal extra value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states the action ('Unite/add') and the resource ('two solids'), and specifies the result ('replaces solid1'). It distinguishes from sibling boolean tools by using 'add', but could be more precise about the operation being a union.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cst_boolean_intersect or cst_boolean_subtract. The description implies it performs a union but does not provide context for selection or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.