fuse_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'fuse' and 'convenience wrapper', but does not mention whether objects are modified in place, what side effects occur, if specific permissions are needed, or if a new object is returned. This is insufficient for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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 sentence with no fluff, front-loading the core action. It is concise and well-structured. However, it is almost too brief, omitting useful context that could be included without affecting conciseness, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 has no annotations, a sparse schema with no descriptions, and a one-sentence description. While an output schema exists (so return values may not need explanation), the description lacks critical context about fuse behavior, side effects, or when to choose this over siblings. For a no-annotation tool, this is incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not explain 'base_object', 'tool_objects', or 'result_name' beyond the generic phrase 'Fuse GEOM objects'. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema properties already provide.

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 fuses GEOM objects, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself as a 'convenience wrapper for boolean fuse', which hints at its relationship to the boolean_operation sibling. However, it does not elaborate on what 'fuse' entails geometrically, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 'convenience wrapper for boolean fuse' implies this tool is for fusing operations, providing context on when to use it. But it does not explicitly state when to use this versus boolean_operation or other boolean tools like cut_objects or common_objects. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, so guidance remains implicit.

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