boolean_operation

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses that applying deletes the cutter, and distinguishes solver quality/speed. However, it omits that the operation creates a modifier (unless applied) and potential error cases.

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 concise summary followed by a bullet-point parameter list. It is front-loaded with the action and wastes no words.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so description must cover behavior. It partially explains effects and types but misses key practical details like the modifier nature, required object types, and return value.

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%, but the description explicitly explains all 5 parameters with their roles, defaults, and semantics (e.g., solver quality vs speed). This adds significant value beyond the 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?

The description clearly states it performs a boolean operation between two mesh objects, listing operation types (DIFFERENCE, UNION, INTERSECT) and distinguishing roles of target and cutter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like join_objects or separate_mesh.

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 explains the parameters and their effects but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like mesh type or non-manifold issues.

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