intersect

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it updates the JCAD document at jcad_path, requires prior state knowledge via get_current_cad_design, and falls back to the last two created objects. While it does not mention potential side effects on operand objects, it provides meaningful operational warnings beyond the bare operation.

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 moderately long but well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then param details, and ending with a critical usage warning. Every element contributes useful information, though the param block is somewhat verbose.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, side effects, precondition (get_current_cad_design), and return value (the document itself). It is complete enough given the lack of output schema and annotations, though it could mention operand preservation or more explicit examples.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting all 9 parameters. It explains shape1/shape2 accept names or indices, color accepts hex or RGB list with a default, and clarifies rotation axis and angle units. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 the tool applies an intersection boolean operation between two objects, using a specific verb and resource. It also notes the default behavior of using the last two created objects, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cut and fuse.

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 clear context for when to use the tool, including the fallback to the last two created objects if none are provided. It also instructs the agent to use get_current_cad_design first to understand the document state. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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