Compute the boolean intersection of two sets of Rhino Brep objects using their GUIDs, returning the shared volume as new geometry.
Intersect a_ids with b_ids. Bridge required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare `destructiveHint: true` and `readOnlyHint: false`, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds one non-obvious behavioral requirement, 'Bridge required', but it does not disclose side effects, object creation/modification behavior, or failure modes.
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. The 'Bridge required' note is concise and informative, though the overall terseness leaves useful context unstated.
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?
The description covers the basic operation and a key prerequisite, and an output schema exists to explain return values. However, in the context of many closely related boolean and mesh boolean tools, it lacks guidance on when to use this variant versus the command or mesh alternatives.
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 merely echoes `a_ids` and `b_ids` without adding any meaning beyond the names or schema hints. It does not explain how to obtain GUIDs, what the IDs refer to, or the roles of optional fields like `name`, `layer`, and `doc_id`, which is especially problematic given the low schema description coverage.
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 identifies the operation ('Intersect') and the operands (`a_ids`, `b_ids`), which makes the tool's purpose apparent. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling boolean operations like union or difference, so it falls just short of 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?
The phrase 'Bridge required' provides a useful prerequisite, and the operation itself implies when it should be used. However, there is no explicit guidance on choosing this tool over related alternatives such as `rhino_boolean_union`, `rhino_boolean_difference`, or `rhino_mesh_boolean_intersection`.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.