boolean_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that boolean operations are destructive to the source nodes, what happens to the originals, whether permission or selection is required, or whether the operation is reversible. For a document-mutating boolean op this is a real gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and its operation vocabulary are presented first with nothing wasted.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is thin. It omits the role of name and parentNodeId, the destructive nature of the operation, and any return behavior, so an agent cannot call it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains the nodeIds requirement (2+ nodes) and names the valid op values (UNION, SUBTRACT, INTERSECT, EXCLUDE), which the schema does not enumerate. However name and parentNodeId receive no explanation at all, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (combine) and resource (vector nodes into a boolean group) and enumerates the boolean operations, which is far more than a tautology. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling group_nodes, which is the most likely confusion point, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus group_nodes, ungroup_node, or create_vector, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the operation list.

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