nx_unite

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the critical side effects: tool bodies are consumed and disappear from nx_list_bodies, while the target body retains its id. It does not cover undo/reversibility or error cases, but the main destructive behavior is explicit.

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 with no filler, front-loaded with the action verb and a clear object. Every clause adds information: the operation, the retained id, and the side effect on the tool bodies.

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 two-parameter boolean operation with an output schema, the description covers the essential semantics and side effects. It could mention prerequisites or failure modes, but the core behavior is complete enough for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the roles of both parameters: tool_body_ids are 'one or more' bodies to be united, and target_body_id is the body that survives with its id. It also points to nx_list_bodies, helping agents understand where body identifiers come from.

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 opens with a specific verb and object ('Boolean-unite ... tool bodies into the target body'), making the operation clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling modeling operations by noting the target body keeps its id and the tool bodies are consumed.

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 clearly implies the tool is for merging bodies, but it never states when to prefer it over alternatives or lists exclusions. An agent can infer usage, yet it has no explicit when/when-not guidance relative to the many sibling operations.

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