rhino_boolean_difference

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true) and non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false), so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the 'Bridge required' constraint, though it does not describe side effects such as whether the original objects are consumed or replaced by the result.

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 two short sentences with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. 'Bridge required' is terse but earns its place as a prerequisite signal.

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 destructive boolean operation, the description is minimal but mostly sufficient: it names the operands, the operation, and a key prerequisite. It leaves 'Bridge required' unexplained and does not mention output behavior, though an output schema is present and destructive annotations cover safety expectations.

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?

The description clarifies the order-relationship between a_ids and b_ids, reinforcing the schema's 'first operand' and 'second operand' descriptions. However, it does not add guidance for the optional parameters like name, layer, or doc_id, and the context signal reports zero schema description coverage at the top level.

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 clear operation ('Subtract b_ids from a_ids') that maps directly to Boolean difference and distinguishes it from union/intersection siblings. It is specific about the verb and the two operands, so an agent can tell what the tool does.

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 phrase 'Bridge required' provides a useful precondition, but the description does not explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives like rhino_boolean_union, rhino_boolean_intersection, or rhino_mesh_boolean_difference. Usage is implied by the subtract semantics rather than explicitly guided.

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