boolean_intersect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one important trait — 'The tools are consumed' — warning that the tool bodies are destroyed. However, it says nothing about whether the target body is modified, what happens if the bodies do not intersect, or whether the operation is reversible, which is a significant gap for an unannotated destructive 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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by the destructive side effect. No redundant or filler wording.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must stand alone. It covers the core operation and the consumption of tool bodies, but leaves out result behavior (empty intersection, error conditions) and whether the target body is altered — gaps that matter for an unannotated mutation tool.

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 100% and both parameters (target, tools) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces the target/tools relationship but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: keep only the volume shared by the target body and the tool bodies. That geometrically distinguishes it from boolean_unite and boolean_subtract, though it never names them, so the differentiation is implicit rather than 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?

Usage is implied only: an agent can infer that this is the intersection operation among the boolean siblings from the phrase 'volume shared.' There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite (e.g., bodies must overlap) guidance.

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