create_boolean

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states it performs boolean operations without disclosing behavioral traits like permanent geometry modification, potential failure cases (e.g., non-intersecting bodies), or the need for specific permissions. The mutating nature is implied but not explicit.

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 of 10 words, very concise and front-loaded with the essential purpose. However, it omits critical information about parameter dependencies, which could be added without much verbosity. Still, it earns a high score for efficiency.

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?

Given full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks context like the feature being created in a part studio, the relationship between toolBodyIds and targetBodyIds, and error conditions. The agent may need to infer usage from context.

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 baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond the schema; e.g., it doesn't explain that targetBodyIds is required for SUBTRACT/INTERSECT, which is a key dependency. The description is too terse to compensate for the schema's descriptions.

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 performs boolean operations (union, subtract, intersect) on bodies, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling feature creation tools like create_fillet or create_extrude by naming the operation types, but doesn't explicitly differentiate beyond that.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when creating a boolean feature versus using direct modeling. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., existing bodies) or scenarios where this tool should not be used. The description is purely functional.

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