rhino_boolean_union

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds the meaningful prerequisite 'Bridge required' and specifies the operand type as Brep, but it does not disclose whether the source Breps are consumed, replaced, or left intact, which would be useful given the destructive annotation.

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 very short and front-loaded: the operation is named immediately, and the critical 'Bridge required' constraint is appended in a second terse sentence. It earns its place, though 'Bridge required' could be slightly more explicit about what the bridge is.

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?

Given the destructive annotation, present output schema, and schema-described operands, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits practical guidance about the effect on the input Breps and does not help the agent distinguish this from the mesh boolean union variants beyond the word 'Brep.'

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 itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the input schema already documents a_ids, b_ids, and doc_id with meaningful descriptions. The term 'Brep groups' loosely maps to a_ids and b_ids, though it does not clarify that these are arrays of GUIDs; the schema compensates for most of this.

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 operation — boolean union — on a specific resource, Brep groups, which is clear and distinct from sibling tools like boolean intersection or mesh boolean union. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the operation and 'Brep' qualifier provide enough differentiation.

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?

Use is implied: call this when performing a boolean union on Brep geometry. The phrase 'Bridge required' adds a necessary environment precondition, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison to alternatives such as rhino_boolean_difference or rhino_mesh_boolean_union.

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