Solid element operation

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral context: live links update when elements move, operators are typically hidden, permanent=true replaces target and operators with result morph(s), and multiple operations collapse into one undo step. This is substantially more than the annotations convey.

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 dense but front-loaded, leading with the core action and examples before defaults and return shape. It is a long single block with some run-on structure, but nearly every clause carries load-bearing information, so little could be cut.

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 complex, destructive tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (results with links or resultMorphs), the undo semantics, the morph-only restriction, and the live-link lifecycle. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns extra credit by explaining the semantic effect of `permanent` (destructive morph-only Boolean vs live link) and that the `operations` array constitutes one undo step. It does not, however, cover skipOperatorHoles or inheritOperatorAttributes, which the schema handles alone.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('cut or add 3D volumes between construction elements') and concrete examples (subtract a morph/slab/object from walls, cut walls under a roof). It is unmistakable against siblings and explicitly names remove_solid_operation as the inverse operation.

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?

It clearly states when to use the default live link vs permanent=true, including the crucial restriction that permanent is morphs-only and destructive, and directs removal to remove_solid_operation. It also explains the single-vs-multiple invocation paths (target/operators/operation vs operations).

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