fuse

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool updates the JCAD document, defaults to the last two created objects, and returns the document. It also warns about the mutation. This goes beyond the minimal requirement and gives useful operational context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a structured list of parameters and a clear warning. It is appropriately sized given the number of parameters, though the shape2 typo is a minor structural blemish. Each sentence contributes value.

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?

For a mutation tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return value, side effects, and operand defaults. It could be enhanced by noting that the shapes must already exist in the document and by clarifying the refine option's effect, but the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the 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?

The schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must explain the parameters. It describes each parameter in natural language, including types, defaults, and meaning. A minor flaw is that shape2 is incorrectly described as 'the first object' (should be 'second'), but all other parameters are clearly explained, and jcad_path is addressed in the warning.

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 clearly states 'Apply a union boolean operation between two objects' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling operations like cut and intersect. The additional note about default operands further clarifies the tool's behavior.

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?

The description provides important usage context: if no objects are passed, the last two created objects are used, and it warns that the JCAD document will be updated and that the agent must call 'get_current_cad_design' first. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative boolean tools like cut or intersect, nor state exclusions for when not to use it.

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