Create editable AutoCAD 3DSOLID primitives or apply boolean union, subtract, or intersect operations in a single atomic request using WCS coordinates.
Create editable AutoCAD 3DSOLID primitives or apply boolean union, subtract, and intersect operations. Coordinates are WCS and one request is atomic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| operation | No | ||
| eraseTools | No | ||
| primitives | No | ||
| toolHandles | No | ||
| targetHandle | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful context by stating coordinates are WCS and that one request is atomic, but it does not explain eraseTools behavior, permissions, or whether boolean operations alter existing solids.
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 two front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though for a six-parameter tool with no schema descriptions it could benefit from a bit more targeted detail.
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 tool has six parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and only high-level annotations. The description omits required parameter semantics, output behavior, and guidance on eraseTools or handle-based boolean operations, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.
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% for six parameters, so the description must compensate. It names the boolean operation values union, subtract, and intersect and implies the create/boolean action split, but it does not explain eraseTools, toolHandles, targetHandle, or the primitive object structures.
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 that the tool creates editable AutoCAD 3DSOLID primitives or applies boolean operations, which is a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from generic CAD siblings by focusing on 3D solids and boolean modeling, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives it is not.
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 implies two usage modes—creating primitives or applying boolean operations—and notes WCS coordinates and atomic request behavior. However, it does not explain when to choose create versus boolean, prerequisites, or when to use a sibling tool instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.