boolean_op

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the union/intersect/difference operations. It does not reveal whether the operation mutates the original geometry, creates new features, requires existing geometry, or how results are returned. The description also does not mention side effects or destructive potential.

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, direct sentence with no filler, and the operation list is usefully front-loaded. It is concise, though it arguably sacrifices important behavioral and parameter detail 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?

The tool has three required parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no usage guidance; the one-line description leaves substantial gaps about input semantics, side effects, and prerequisites. While an output schema exists, that does not help an agent decide how to invoke this tool correctly or whether it is the right tool for a given CAD/geometry task.

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 for undocumented parameters. It partially clarifies 'operation' by listing the three allowed values, but geom_tag and inputs remain unmeaningful: there is no explanation of whether inputs are feature names, tags, or geometry selections, nor of how geom_tag relates to them.

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 names a specific action ('combine geometry features') and enumerates the allowed operation modes ('union|intersect|difference'), making the tool's purpose clear. It also distinguishes it from sibling geometry-creation tools like add_sphere, import_geometry, add_block, and add_cylinder, though 'geometry features' is not precisely defined.

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?

Usage context is only implied: the verb 'combine' suggests it acts on existing geometry rather than creating primitives like the add_* siblings. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of what should populate geom_tag or inputs.

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