boolean_subtract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important trait: 'The tools are consumed,' signaling a destructive operation on the tool bodies. However, it says nothing about whether the target body is modified in place, whether the operation is undoable, or what happens when bodies do not intersect, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core operation and its destructive side effect are front-loaded. It is efficient, though the second sentence is terse enough that its meaning relies on the reader understanding the boolean-operation context.

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?

For a two-parameter boolean operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the consumption of tools. It omits the fate of the target body, prerequisites for valid input, and error conditions, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so both parameters are documented ('Target body', 'Tool bodies'), establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds only the marginal clarification that the tool bodies are consumed, not extra format or constraint details for either parameter.

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: 'Subtract tool bodies from the target body' tells the agent exactly what operation is performed and on which inputs. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling boolean_unite or boolean_intersect, so an agent must infer the difference from the verb alone, which keeps it below a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., bodies sharing a part or overlapping volumes), and no named alternatives. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the operation name.

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