boolean_fuse

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It hints at atomicity with 'validated transaction', but does not state whether the operation mutates the document, requires editable objects, affects existing geometry, or returns errors. This is insufficient for a likely mutating 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 a single short sentence with no filler, but it is overly terse. It sacrifices necessary behavioral and parameter context rather than structuring information effectively.

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, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no explanation of result handling, the description is far from complete. Even though an output schema exists, the description still fails to explain what the tool returns, when to invoke it, or what 'validated transaction' concretely means.

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%, and the description provides no parameter meaning. object_a, object_b, result_name, and doc_name are all left unexplained. The only implicit link is 'two shapes' loosely mapping to object_a and object_b.

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 specific verb ('fuse') and resource ('two shapes'), making the core action clear. It is distinguishable from sibling boolean_cut and boolean_common by the word 'fuse' implying union, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 tool versus boolean_cut, boolean_common, or other siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions that would select this tool.

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