Add intersection lines between two or more overlapping 3D forms to define their shared boundaries and transitions.
Add intersection lines between two or more overlapping 3D forms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| forms | Yes | Array of form definitions (at least 2). | |
| showForms | No | Render the forms alongside intersection lines. Default: true. | |
| transitionType | No | Intersection transition type. Default: hard. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool adds lines but does not explain mutation side effects, whether the original forms remain visible, what kind of output is produced, or whether the operation is reversible.
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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant or wasted wording. It communicates the core action efficiently, even though it is under-specified in other dimensions.
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 accepts a nested array of 3D forms, has no annotations, and has no output schema, so the description should do more to explain behavior and return expectations. It covers only the surface purpose and leaves key operational details unspecified.
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 schema already documents the top-level parameters and defaults. The description only reinforces the 'two or more forms' requirement and adds no further meaning about forms structure, showForms, or transitionType beyond what the schema provides.
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 states a specific verb and resource: adding intersection lines between overlapping 3D forms. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from nearby siblings such as design_add_cross_contours or design_add_construction_form.
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 phrase 'between two or more overlapping 3D forms' implies the scenario in which the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusion, or comparison to alternatives. The usage context is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.