Boolean bodies

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

Annotations contain only a title, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the operation type but does not mention that boolean operations typically consume tool bodies unless keep_tools is set, that the feature is validated by default, or what happens on regeneration errors. For a mutating CAD operation, this is a significant transparency 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action and operation modes are front-loaded, and the special subtraction requirement is stated economically. Every word earns its place.

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?

This tool has 10 parameters, a destructive editing effect, and no output schema or meaningful annotations. The description only covers the basic operation and one parameter dependency. It omits default behavior for tools/keep_tools, validation behavior, and side effects, leaving an agent without enough context to anticipate the tool's full impact.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by explicitly calling out that SUBTRACTION also requires the targets query, which is a critical conditional dependency not stated in the parameter descriptions themselves.

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 clear action ('Combine bodies') on a specific resource (bodies) and enumerates the operation modes (UNION, SUBTRACTION, INTERSECTION). However, it does not differentiate from the closely named sibling tool onshape_boolean_union, leaving the agent to infer which of the two boolean tools to choose.

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 gives one useful operational guideline: subtraction requires the targets query. But it provides no general guidance on when to use this tool versus onshape_boolean_union or any other feature-creation sibling, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The context is implicit rather than explicit.

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