Combines bodies in a multibody part using union, subtract, or intersect operations to create a single solid or cut geometry.
Boolean between bodies of a multibody part: union, subtract, intersect.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | No | Document title or path. Defaults to the active document. | |
| name | No | Optional name for the new feature. | |
| operation | Yes | ||
| main_body_point | Yes | A point on a face of the main body. | |
| tool_body_points | Yes | Points on the tool bodies. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description defines the domain of the tool (Boolean operations) but adds little to the behavioral context beyond what is already implied by the action and the enum values in the schema. It does not contradict the non-destructive/non-readonly hints.
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 highly concise single sentence. Every word serves to define the tool's capability and scope.
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?
It provides a very strong overview of the tool's high-level function. Given the schema is detailed, the description acts as a solid, brief conceptual summary for the AI.
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?
With schema description coverage at 80%, the description primarily adds high-level context. It does not offer unique insights into why specific inputs like 'main_body_point' are required versus what they represent geometrically, making it adequate but not impactful.
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?
Clearly identifies the function as a Boolean operation between bodies within a multibody part. It specifies the three types of operations supported (union, subtract, intersect), which is effective.
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 only explains what the tool is, not when to use it. There is no comparison to alternative tools (e.g., sw_cut_extrude) or any exclusionary criteria, leaving the agent to rely entirely on its own reasoning about the tool's functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.