rhino_boolean_difference

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

Annotations mark destructiveHint=true, but the description does not elaborate on the destructive nature, the default deletion of input objects (delete_input defaults to true), or potential failure when solids do not intersect. It adds no behavioral information beyond the annotations.

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, direct sentence with no filler words, front-loading the core action. It is concise and effectively structured for quick parsing.

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?

The description omits critical context: it does not mention that the operation is destructive by default (delete_input defaults to true), that the inputs may be deleted, or that the solids should be closed and overlapping for a meaningful result. Since the tool is destructive and has a mutable default, this lack of context makes it incomplete for safe invocation.

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 clarifies that solid A is the base and solid B is subtracted, giving meaning to the parameter names that the schema only labels as 'first' and 'second'. However, it does not explain delete_input or provide constraints on the solid types, leaving the agent to infer from the schema's sparse descriptions (coverage 0% per signal).

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 'Subtract solid B from solid A' uses a specific verb (subtract) with clear resources (solid A and solid B), making the operation immediately distinguishable from sibling boolean tools like union and intersection. It precisely states the action without ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as boolean_union or boolean_intersection, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states the operation without context for selection.

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