boolean_operation

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

The annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, and '(undoable)' is consistent with destructiveHint=false while adding the useful fact that the operation can be reversed. However, the key behavioral question for a boolean — whether the source objects are consumed, hidden, or remain in the tree — is not addressed, nor is any precondition or failure mode.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the operation list sits inline and is easy to scan. It is perhaps slightly too terse given five undocumented parameters, but nothing is redundant.

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 no explanation, and the annotations plus '(undoable)' cover the mutation profile. The remaining gap is the unclear mapping of base_name and tool_name to the 'two objects' mentioned; otherwise the definition is complete enough to attempt a correct call.

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% and there are no enums, so the description carries real weight by supplying the valid values for 'operation' ('Fuse', 'Cut', 'Common') that the schema does not. It adds nothing, though, for base_name, tool_name, name, or doc_name, leaving the crucial base-vs-tool distinction undefined.

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 states a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('Part CSG Boolean') and enumerates the three supported operations ('Fuse', 'Cut', 'Common'), which lets an agent identify the tool without opening the schema. It does not name a sibling it should be preferred over, but no other boolean tool appears among the siblings, so differentiation is not a practical gap.

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?

'between two objects' implies that two existing objects are prerequisites, which is weak implicit guidance. There is no statement of when to choose Fuse versus Cut versus Common, no mention that a document must be active or that objects must be selected/created first, and no exclusions or alternatives.

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