boolean_common

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it only states that the operation occurs in 'one validated transaction.' It does not disclose whether the input shapes are modified, whether a new shape is created, how the result is stored, or what validation actually involves. This is minimal behavioral transparency.

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 wasted words. Every phrase contributes either to what the tool does or to its transactional behavior.

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 four parameters, zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and related boolean siblings, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify how the transaction relates to documents, what the result shape becomes, or how this operation differs from boolean_cut and boolean_fuse. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but the operational context remains 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 for parameter meaning. It implicitly identifies 'two shapes' as object_a and object_b, but it says nothing about the optional doc_name or result_name parameters, leaving half the parameters unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Intersect', with a clear resource, 'two shapes', making the operation unambiguous. It also distinguishes the tool from the sibling boolean_cut and boolean_fuse operations, since intersection is a distinct boolean result.

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 'Intersect two shapes' clearly conveys when to use this tool: when the agent needs the common volume or overlapping region of two shapes. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for when NOT to use it, though the intent is reasonably clear.

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