Insert solid2 into solid1 to embed it within the host while preserving both material regions at the overlap.
Insert solid2 into solid1. Solid2 is embedded within solid1, maintaining both material regions at the overlap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| solid1 | Yes | Host solid in "Component:Solid" format | |
| solid2 | Yes | Solid to insert 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?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'maintaining both material regions' but does not clarify if the operation is destructive to solid1, whether solid2 remains independently selectable, or what happens to material assignments. The term 'embedded' is ambiguous.
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?
Two short sentences convey the essential operation without extraneous information. Every word earns its place.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple two-parameter tool with no nested objects or output schema. However, it lacks details about return values, side effects on the scene, or error conditions, which would be helpful for a boolean operation.
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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions ('Host solid', 'Solid to insert'). The description adds slight nuance ('Insert solid2 into solid1') but does not substantially improve understanding 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Insert solid2 into solid1') and the result (maintaining both material regions). It distinguishes from sibling boolean operations by implying a non-destructive insertion, though it could explicitly differentiate from cst_boolean_add or cst_boolean_intersect.
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 provided on when to use this tool over alternatives like cst_boolean_add, cst_boolean_intersect, or cst_boolean_subtract. The description lacks usage context, prerequisites, or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.