solid_boolean

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does well: it discloses the mutation side-effects (combining/cutting solids) and that the tool body is consumed, which is critical before invocation. It does not mention reversibility or transaction requirements, but the destructive semantics are clearly conveyed.

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?

Three tightly packed lines: operation+return values, side-effects, disambiguation. Front-loaded and zero waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and all three params are fully documented in schema. The description covers the key side-effect and consumption behavior; only transaction/permission context is absent, which is minor for this tool.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter including that tool_handle is consumed and target_handle is modified in-place. The description adds the 'distinct' constraint but otherwise reinforces rather than extends schema meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (apply UNION/SUBTRACT/INTERSECT) on a specific resource (two ACIS 3DSOLIDs) and names what it returns. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like solid_transform or solid_create_primitive.

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 says the operation happens 'between two distinct' solids and that the tool body is consumed, which implies usage context. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives such as solid_transform or solid_inspect, leaving selection largely to inference.

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