rhino_boolean_union

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

The annotation destructiveHint: true already signals the operation modifies state. The description adds no further context about side effects (e.g., input objects being deleted or replaced). However, the schema separately documents delete_input, which covers the deletion behavior. Since the annotation and schema already provide the relevant behavioral details, the description's silence is acceptable, but it adds no extra value beyond the structured data.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome. There is zero redundancy, and the parenthetical '(merge into one)' adds clarifying value without bloat. Ideal conciseness.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values need not be described) and the annotations/schema already cover destructive behavior and the delete_input parameter, the description covers the essential operation. It does not mention prerequisites like overlapping solids or potential failure modes, but these are not strictly necessary for a well-understood boolean operation. The tool is adequately specified.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (guid_a, guid_b, delete_input), so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage; no penalty or bonus applies.

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 verb ('Boolean union'), the resource ('two solids'), and the outcome ('merge into one'). It is precise and immediately distinguishes the operation from sibling tools like boolean_difference and boolean_intersection, even without naming them.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what the operation does, but does not explain scenarios (e.g., 'use when you need to combine overlapping solids into a single object') or contrast it with difference/intersection. Usage context is only implied by the operation name.

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