boolean_objects

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full load, and it discloses key post-conditions: result keeps object's name, settings and filaments, painted colors persist, new faces take the part's filament, and the tool object is deleted unless keep_tool=True. It does not cover reversibility/undo or failure modes beyond the closed-solid check.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action before the operation breakdown, and every clause adds usable information. It is dense across three sentences but not padded.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers inputs, results, and the key side effect (tool removal). Minor gaps remain around error behavior when solids are open and what the returned result handle looks like.

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%, but the description defines all five parameters in context: object vs tool_object roles, the three valid operation values, part (defaulting to the biggest) for union, and keep_tool controlling whether the tool object is removed.

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 and resource ('Mesh boolean between two objects on the plate') and anchors it to a known reference (Bambu Studio's Mesh boolean). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like merge_objects and cut_object by naming the operations and their geometry semantics.

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?

Explains each operation's intent (difference = cut a hole; intersection = keep shared volume; union = weld onto a part), which tells the agent which one to pick. It also states the closed-solid prerequisite and points to check_object. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with cut_object/merge_objects siblings.

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