geometry_boolean_difference

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

With no annotations, the description must fully describe behavior. It only says 'create a boolean difference' and returns 'operation info', but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, modifies existing objects, or creates new ones. No side effects or permissions are mentioned.

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 concise: one purpose line followed by a structured Args list and a return line. It is front-loaded with the main operation. Minor waste: the 'Returns' line is vague but acceptable.

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?

With no output schema, the description should provide more detail about the return value. 'Created difference operation info' is too generic. Covers parameter definitions but lacks usage context, error handling, or examples. Adequate but not complete.

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 description must compensate. The description provides brief role explanations for parameters (e.g., 'Object to subtract from'), and default values for some. This adds meaning beyond the schema's title-only fields, but explanations are still high-level and lack details like allowed formats or constraints.

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 explicitly states 'Create a boolean difference (subtract objects from another)' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool geometry_boolean_union by naming the operation.

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 or when to prefer alternatives. Does not mention that geometry_boolean_union exists for union operations or provide any context about prerequisites or common use cases.

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