Subtract one solid from another by removing the overlapping volume of the second solid from the first; the second solid is deleted after the boolean operation.
Subtract solid2 from solid1. The overlapping volume of solid2 is removed from solid1. Solid2 is deleted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| solid1 | Yes | Solid to subtract from in "Component:Solid" format | |
| solid2 | Yes | Solid to subtract (removed) 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?
The description discloses that solid2 is deleted as a side effect, which is valuable. However, it does not mention whether solid1 is modified in place or if a new object is created, nor does it discuss error conditions or prerequisites. With no annotations, the burden is on the description, and it partially meets it.
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: three short sentences, each adding distinct information (operation, effect on solid1, side effect on solid2). No wasted words, and the most critical information is front-loaded.
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 simple subtract operation with a complete input schema, the description covers the core action and side effect. It could be slightly more explicit about whether the operation modifies solid1 in place, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema are clear. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond restating the roles (subtract from vs. subtract). 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 operation: subtract solid2 from solid1, and explains the effect. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling boolean operations like add, insert, or intersect, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing between them.
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 versus alternatives (e.g., cst_boolean_add, cst_boolean_intersect). The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.