boolean_operation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it does not mention side effects, whether objects are modified in place or new objects are created, or any requirements like existing geometry. This lacks transparency for a mutation-like operation.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The parameter summary is useful and not verbose. It could be slightly better organized but is appropriately sized.

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 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It lacks details on result_name, the exact behavior of the operation, and prerequisites or side effects. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description still leaves significant gaps.

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?

The description partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage by explaining the operation values (fuse|cut|common) and that base_object/tool_objects accept entry IDs or names. However, it omits the result_name parameter entirely and does not clarify the array format of tool_objects, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 tool performs boolean operations on GEOM objects, naming the specific operations (fuse, cut, common). It distinguishes the general purpose from the more specific sibling tools, though it does not explicitly refer to them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this generic boolean_operation tool versus the dedicated fuse_objects, cut_objects, or common_objects tools. The description implies it can handle any of the three operations but doesn't advise on choice.

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