path_boolean

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so well: it explains automatic object-to-path insertion, warns that booleans silently no-op on rect/circle without it, and reveals Inkscape's two-object limitation that motivates chaining. It does not discuss other possible side effects such as how layers, styles, or malformed inputs are handled, which keeps it from a 5.

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 compact and front-loaded with purpose and options. The phrase about using the correct path-* action names is slightly implementation-oriented, but it is not redundant with the schema and supports behavioral transparency. Overall it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral facts: operation values, no-op risk on basic shapes, and multi-object chaining. The input schema covers parameter syntax and overwrite behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it does not spell out error handling or the exact output format.

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?

Although all parameters are already described in the schema, the description adds crucial meaning to the `operation` parameter by listing the valid values, which the schema's description only refers to indirectly. It also clarifies how object_ids are interpreted for non-path shapes through the object-to-path insertion note. This exceeds the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Boolean path ops' and enumerates the exact operations (union, difference, intersection, exclusion, division, cut), giving a specific verb, resource, and operation set. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like path_geometry or path_convert. It also mentions the underlying path-* action names, which further anchors what the tool invokes.

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 establishes a clear context: use this tool for boolean combinations of paths, with explicit operation names. It adds practical guidance about auto-inserting object-to-path and pairwise chaining for more than two objects. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it falls just short of full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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