Intersect two solids, retaining the shared volume as the first solid and removing the second, for boolean geometry editing.
Intersect two solids. Only the overlapping volume is kept, replacing solid1. Solid2 is deleted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| solid1 | Yes | First solid in "Component:Solid" format | |
| solid2 | Yes | Second solid in "Component:Solid" format |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states that solid1 is replaced and solid2 is deleted, which is good transparency for a boolean operation. Minor missing details like irreversibility or return value, but adequate.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with key actions, and contains zero wasted words. Highly efficient.
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 no output schema, the description explains the operation's effect on inputs. It might benefit from mentioning return value or logging, but overall complete for a simple boolean operation.
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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having descriptive format info. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. No need for extra semantics.
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 intersects two solids, keeps the overlapping volume, and specifies the effects on solid1 and solid2. It distinctly differentiates from sibling boolean operations like add, insert, and subtract.
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 implicitly indicates usage for intersection operations, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives is provided. However, the sibling names are distinct enough to infer the differences.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.