create_boolean

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Perform a boolean operation.' It does not state whether this creates a new feature, modifies/destroys the target bodies, requires specific body ownership, or how the operation affects the existing modeling history. For a mutation tool, this is a meaningful gap.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that communicates the core operation and valid operation types without any filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource and contains no wasted words.

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?

Given 7 parameters, 5 required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-line description is not complete enough on its own. It omits the relationship between targetBodyIds and toolBodyIds, the expected result of each boolean type, any prerequisites such as body overlap, and what the tool returns or changes in the model.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds little beyond restating union/subtract/intersect, which duplicates the booleanType enum. Thus a baseline 3 is appropriate; the schema is doing the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Perform a boolean operation') and the resource ('bodies'), and it enumerates the supported operation types (union, subtract, intersect), which is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling modeling tools like create_extrude or create_fillet. It does not name siblings explicitly, but the operation types make the purpose unambiguous.

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 that this tool should be used when a boolean combination of bodies is needed, based on the explicit operation types. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternative feature-creation tools.

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