boolean

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

The description only restates the operation list; it does not disclose the key behavior that the target body is modified in place and, by default (keep_tools=false), the tool bodies are consumed. Annotations declare destructiveHint=false, so the fact that geometry is removed from the target is exactly the kind of context the description should surface. Nothing about selection requirements or failure modes is given.

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. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than precision.

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?

An output schema exists and the input schema documents most parameters, so the burden is lighter. Still, for a geometry-mutating operation the description leaves out the in-place modification of target and the default consumption of tool bodies, both of which affect how an agent sequences calls.

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 75%: target, tools and keep_tools all carry descriptions, and the operation enum values are self-explanatory. The description's 'into target' reinforces the direction of the operation but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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?

Names the three concrete operations (unite, subtract, intersect) and the object they act on (bodies, into target), which is more specific than the bare tool name 'boolean'. No sibling tool performs booleans, so cross-tool confusion is low. It stops short of stating that a single target body is produced.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the constructive siblings (sketch_extrude, revolve_sketch, create_box) or the modification siblings (move_body, delete_body). No preconditions, no mention of what state bodies must be in before the operation.

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