boolean_cut

Does 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 mentions 'one validated transaction,' which suggests atomicity and validation, but it does not disclose whether the operation modifies object_a in place, creates a new result, or what happens to existing geometry.

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 filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, and the primary operation is stated immediately.

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 boolean operation with four parameters and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits the role of result_name and doc_name, the effect on input objects, and preconditions for valid subtraction, even though an output schema exists.

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 adds meaning to the two required parameters by defining their roles in the subtraction operation ('object_b from object_a'). However, it says nothing about doc_name or result_name, both of which have no schema descriptions, leaving optional parameter semantics 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 uses a specific verb ('Subtract') and names the exact resources and direction ('object_b from object_a'), making the operation unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling boolean operations like boolean_fuse and boolean_common by describing the cut/difference behavior clearly.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as boolean_fuse or boolean_common. The word 'Subtract' implies a difference operation, but there is no direct guidance about selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusionary conditions.

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