boolean

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses important behaviors: a no-op cut fails loudly instead of silently succeeding, and the typical cause (non-overlap) is explained. It also describes a powerful pattern for preserving internal structure. However, it does not state whether the base/tool solids are consumed, modified, or left intact, which is relevant for a boolean operation.

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 longer than average, but every section contributes: purpose, alternative-tool contrast, failure behavior, a usage pattern, and parameter documentation. It is well-structured with a clear intro and an Args block. The length is justified by the complexity and the absence of annotations/schema descriptions.

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 5-parameter tool with no enums and no schema descriptions, the description provides a complete picture: what the operation does, when to use it, failure semantics, a sophisticated pattern example, and all parameter meanings. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to explain return values, so the description covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, and the description fully compensates by documenting every parameter in the Args section. It explicitly lists allowed values for 'operation' ('cut', 'fuse', 'common') and explains that multiple tools are automatically combined for a cut, which is critical semantic detail beyond the raw schema.

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?

Begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Cut, fuse, or intersect ARBITRARY existing solids.' It clearly identifies this as the assembly boolean primitive and distinguishes it from 'pocket' by naming the alternative tool and its limitations. The scope ('arbitrary existing solids') is explicit.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use this whenever the tool is a separate object' with concrete examples (hollowing a piston, subtracting a shaft, merging bosses). It also contrasts with pocket and notes the failure mode when no material is removed, helping agents choose and verify the right tool.

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