rhino_boolean_intersection

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

The description does not disclose that the operation is destructive or that it modifies/deletes input objects by default. While annotations include destructiveHint=true, the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as what happens to the original solids or failure conditions.

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?

A single, short sentence with zero filler. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 is incomplete for a destructive boolean operation. It lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., closed solids, intersection existence), error handling, or the effect of the delete_input parameter. While output schema exists, an agent invoking this tool would benefit from knowing that inputs are replaced and that operation may fail without intersecting geometry.

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 no meaning about the parameters (guid_a, guid_b, delete_input) beyond what the schema already provides. With 0% schema description coverage in the description, it fails to compensate; the schema's basic GUID descriptions and the delete_input default are not expanded upon.

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 operation (keep only the intersecting volume) and the resource (two solids). It unambiguously distinguishes from sibling boolean tools like rhino_boolean_union and rhino_boolean_difference, making the purpose immediately evident.

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 alternatives. It does not mention that this is the boolean intersection operation, nor does it contrast with union or difference. An agent must infer usage from the name and sibling context.

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