boolean

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the safety burden and does so well: it discloses the destructive default (inputs deleted unless keep_inputs=true), where the result lands (result_name), and that material is inherited from the base. It does not cover failure modes (non-solid bodies, empty intersection) or which document the inputs/result must live in.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose before operations, then side effects, then the practical caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of schema structure.

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 need not be described; the description instead covers the operation matrix, destructive behavior, result naming, material inheritance, and the main geometric pitfall. That is sufficient for an agent to invoke this six-parameter 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it explains the semantics of base, tools, operation, keep_inputs, and result_name — five of six parameters. Only 'doc' is left implicit, which is a minor gap given its self-evident meaning.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Boolean combine objects') and then defines all three operation modes in terms of base and tools. No sibling tool performs boolean operations, and the description makes that scope unambiguous.

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?

Clearly states the condition for each mode (cut, fuse, common) and gives a practical usage caution about coplanar/tangent tool faces with a concrete remedy. It does not, however, name any alternative tool or exclusion (e.g., when to use 'hole' or 'pocket' instead of a cut).

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