Boolean Operation

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It implies mutation ('combine') without detailing effects like whether the original bodies are modified or new ones created, or any rate limits. With annotations covering basic safety, the description adds some value but lacks depth on behavioral traits.

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 single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('combine') and includes essential details (resources and operations). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity of a boolean operation tool with 3 parameters (2 required), 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only cover basic hints, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain parameter meanings, expected outcomes, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the 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%, so the description must compensate, but it only vaguely references parameters ('two named bodies', 'join/cut/intersect'). It doesn't explain what 'target_body' and 'tool_body' represent, their formats, or the semantics of the operations beyond the enum values. This leaves key parameter meanings 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('combine') and the resources ('two named bodies'), specifying the operations (join/cut/intersect). It distinguishes from siblings like 'split_body' or 'stitch_surfaces' by focusing on boolean operations between bodies. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'extrude' or 'loft', which might also combine geometry in different ways.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., existing bodies), exclusions (e.g., when to use 'split_body' instead), or comparisons to siblings like 'stitch_surfaces'. This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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