rhino_cmd_boolean_intersection

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the geometry operation and input type, but does not disclose whether the original solids are deleted or replaced, whether a new object is created, or what happens if the selection is invalid or not closed. For a mutating boolean operation, this is a significant gap.

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 main sentence is compact and front-loaded, clearly stating the operation and target geometry. One point is lost because the stray 'Args' docstring line does not correspond to the actual input schema and therefore does not fully earn its place.

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 presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the empty parameter schema reduces parameter concerns. But for a mutating tool with no annotations, the description remains too thin: it omits side effects, how the selection is interpreted, and failure behavior, so an agent cannot safely predict the outcome of calling it.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is little to document and the baseline should be high. However, the description includes an 'Args: controller: RhinoController instance' line that is not represented in the schema, which could mislead an agent into thinking it must supply a controller argument.

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 names the operation ('Boolean intersection') and the input class ('selected closed polysurfaces / solids'), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not distinguish this from sibling tools such as rhino_boolean_intersection or the mesh boolean variants, so it stops 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rhino_boolean_union, rhino_boolean_difference, or rhino_mesh_boolean_intersection. The only implied context is that objects must already be selected, which is not enough to support correct tool selection.

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