boolean

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses substantial behavior: repair/repair_mesh healing, exact failure conditions and what they report, solver fallback logic including a micrometre tool shift, material slot inheritance rules, welding and zero-area face dissolution, and the allow_open override with a warning. This is a model of 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?

Dense and long, but front-loaded with the core action and every sentence carries distinct information (failure modes, returned fields, materials). Slight over-density but appropriate for a tool with this many interacting behaviors.

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?

Complete for a 7-parameter, no-output-schema tool: it even names the answer fields (repaired, merged_vertices, removed_zero_faces, doubled_vertices_left, solver, tool_shift_m), covers failure paths, and closes the loop on both input preconditions and result validation.

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 carries the full burden and does so well: it explains keep_tool, repair, allow_open, the solver fallback, and operation ('difference' is spelled out, union/intersect implied by the enum). The enum values EXACT/MANIFOLD/FLOAT themselves are not individually defined, but their selection mechanism is described.

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') and explains the transformation precisely: `a` is changed, `b` is the tool and deleted unless keep_tool, and difference cuts b out of a. However, it never differentiates itself from the sibling `combine` tool, leaving ambiguity about which to pick for merging meshes.

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 clear application context ('Use it for windows, doors, holes, notches') and states the key precondition that both meshes should be closed with outward normals (check_mesh). It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not to use it, e.g. versus `combine`.

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