boolean

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that `b` is deleted, that `a` is mutated, the repair/open-mesh healing path, the exact failure conditions (edge counts and world box), the material-slot inheritance rule, welding and zero-area cleanup, and the solver fallback with micrometre-shifted tools. This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

It is densely packed and largely front-loaded (core semantics first, edge cases after), and nearly every sentence carries information. However, it is a long wall of text with no structural breaks, which slightly hurts quick scanning for a 7-parameter tool.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description effectively documents return signals (repaired, merged_vertices, removed_zero_faces, doubled_vertices_left, solver, tool_shift_m) and error contents. For a complex boolean operation with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: a/b roles, keep_tool, repair=true healing behavior, solver fallback semantics (and tool_shift_m), allow_open skipping the check and emitting a warning, and the difference operation are all explained. Only `union` and `intersect` enum values are left unstated, a minor gap given how much else is covered.

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+resource (combine two meshes via a boolean operation) and immediately defines the roles of `a` (changed) and `b` (tool, deleted unless keep_tool), plus what difference does. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like `combine`, `weld`, and `repair_mesh`, which perform different mesh operations.

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?

Gives a concrete use-case cue ('Use it for windows, doors, holes, notches') and a prerequisite workflow (meshes should be closed with outward normals, verified via check_mesh). It does not explicitly contrast with the closest siblings such as `combine` or `weld`, so the alternative-selection guidance is implied rather than stated.

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